Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLIES

Beaminster District

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Health why, in view of the need for the improvement of water supplies in rural areas, his Department is discouraging the Beaminster Rural District Council from proceeding with their water supply scheme for Corscombe and Halstock by deferring their application for a grant on this and on the Netherbury scheme until the whole regional water scheme is considered.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am informed that the council are proceeding with the scheme. The deficiency on this and the other work now in hand is not sufficient to warrant a grant, but it will be taken into account if and when other schemes are approved.

Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that a 1s. 6d. rate is involved in this scheme and that that is a considerable deterrent to rural councils in formulating schemes?

Mr. Bevan: The amount involved in this scheme is only 2½d. As I have said, we will take this into account with the other schemes when they are approved.

Local Authority Schemes

Mr. Bell: asked the Minister of Health what is the total value of the claims submitted to him by local authorities under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944; the total amount of expenditure which he has authorised, and the amount of money that has been actually spent under the provisions of that Act up to 31st October, 1950, or the nearest convenient date.

Mr. Bevan: Up to 31st October, 1950, grants under the Act have been claimed in respect of schemes estimated to cost about £80 million; the cost of schemes so far authorised for grants amounts to £18,600,000 and £2,237,000 has been paid by way of grant, in addition schemes have been approved in principle for another £18,130,000 and grants promised, finally or conditionally, for £9,793,000.

Mr. Bell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why so small an amount of grant assistance has actually been paid out?

Mr. Bevan: We think that the grant assistance which has been paid out has been adequate in proportion to the schemes approved.

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (SUPERANNUATION)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to ensure that superannuation benefits are enjoyed in cases of officials transferred from local to national government service before 4th February, 1948, and who were debarred thereby from continuing superannuation payments through no fault of their own.

Mr. Bevan: The superannuation rights of officials compulsorily transferred from local to national government service are already safeguarded. I can hold out no prospect of restoring rights already relinquished by an officer who transferred voluntarily before 4th February, 1948, the date of the introduction of the Bill for the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave injustice caused to some officials who put in over 25 years' devoted service? Will he not look at the matter again?

Mr. Bevan: There is no injustice to a person who transferred on his own initiative before the Act was in operation.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to receive representations with a view to reviewing the position of these officers and the conditions under which the whole or part of their local government service might be taken into account, because there are some serious anomalies?

Mr. Bevan: I think these are matters to be taken up by the representatives of the persons concerned through the Whitley machinery.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Chronic Sick, Essex (Accommodation)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to overcome the acute shortage of accommodation for the elderly sick in the County of Essex.

Mr. Bevan: The Regional Hospital Board have asked that at least 10 per cent. of the beds in each general hospital should be set aside for chronic sick patients. Additional beds have been provided as staff has become available, special geriatric units have been set up, and arrangements have been made for private institutions to take a considerable number of patients. Everything possible will continue to be done compatible with the staff and medical resources available.

Mr. Braine: While appreciating that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there are still large numbers of people, in Essex at least, who, in the opinion of their doctors, should be removed to a hospital? As great suffering is caused thereby, will the Minister not treat this matter with greater urgency?

Mr. Bevan: There is a very large number of people in this category, far more than ever there were and far more in hospitals now than ever before. This is a very difficult and grave social problem.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is the Minister aware that of all the people who have been helped by the National Health Service Act the old, chronically sick have been helped least of all? Is it not a fact that they were better housed in Poor Law institutions and——

Mr. Speaker: Arguments are not in order at Question time. Hon. Members should only ask for information, or press for Government action.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is it not a fact——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Part-time Nurses

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health why the number of part-time nurses has fallen from 136,000 to 25,000; and what his policy is in regard to part-time nursing.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member seems to have been misinformed. The number of part-time nurses has never been higher than the present total of 25,000, and was about 17,000 when the National Health Service began. My policy is to encourage their employment wherever there are serious staff shortages.

Tuberculosis

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health how many notifications of new cases of tuberculosis in England and Wales were recorded in 1949.

Mr. Bevan: The number of such notifications, in 1949, was 52,041.

Mr. Braine: Is that an increase or a diminution compared with last year?

Mr. Bevan: I think it is an increase. These increases are due to the fact that we are now using mass radiography. Although we are discovering more tuberculosis of a respiratory kind—the increase in the number of notifications being 5½ per cent.—there has been a decrease in the number of deaths, over the last five years, of 12½ per cent.

Mr. Braine: In view of the fact that these tragic figures continue to rise and good housing is preventive medicine, will the right hon. Gentleman not now consider treating houses as a No. 1 priority?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member has obviously ignored the last part of my last reply. The number of fatalities is falling, although the number of notified cases is on the increase. I should have thought that everyone would rejoice about that.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements have been made to ensure that those who, as a result of the mass radiology tests are found to be in the early stages of tuberculosis have the requisite treatment.

Mr. Bevan: They are referred to a chest physician and treated according to their need and the facilities available.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is not now very much delay in many cases before these people can get any sort of treatment?

Mr. Bevan: There is delay. As I explained in answer to an earlier Question, many people have been discovered to be suffering from respiratory tuberculosis at an earlier stage, but, fortunately, the treatment is resulting in a reduction in the number of fatalities.

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Minister of Health how long a tuberculosis patient has now to wait for a hospital bed.

Mr. Bevan: It depends so widely on the individual circumstances and local resources in each case that no average figure would have much meaning.

Brigadier Smyth: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this situation is improving, because it seems to a great many of us that it is getting steadily worse?

Mr. Bevan: I have already indicated, in two answers, that the general overall position is improving.

Mr. Mellish: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the real problem is a shortage of nurses?

Mr. Bevan: That is a reason why I issued a circular asking hospital authorities to make beds available for this type of case in general hospitals. I have had an interim report on the matter, and there has already been a very large increase in the number of beds.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Health how many patients are waiting accommodation in tuberculosis hospitals and sanatoria at the most recent date for which figures are available.

Mr. Bevan: Annual returns as at 31st December last showed that the number was then approximately 11,000.

Mr. Amory: In view of the long waiting lists of people for this kind of treatment, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that any revision in relation to priority of needs within the hospital service is called for and that any solution could be found by making use of beds which exist in Switzerland?

Mr. Bevan: I have already replied that tuberculosis patients have been moved on the priority lists by asking the general hospitals to set aside wards for such patients.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Did not the Minister hear the concluding remarks of my hon. Friend's question, which was that he might give consideration to relieving these heavy lists by making use of the large number of beds available in Switzerland?

Mr. Bevan: I have been prepared to consider it, but, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, currency difficulties are involved.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but is it not the case that currency difficulties have now existed for a considerable time? In view of the great shortage of beds and the well-known fact that it will not be possible to catch up with these lists in a reasonable time, could there not be some acceleration?

Mr. Bevan: I shall be able to give to the House before very long a report on the progress which has been made in making beds available in this country.

Hearing Aids

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is proposing to take to accelerate delivery of a hearing aid to a Surbiton resident, particulars of whom have been sent to him, who has been awaiting delivery of a hearing aid for over a year, and who has been informed that he will not receive it for a further two years.

Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Member has been informed, this patient has no exceptional claim to priority. The service as a whole will be expanded as resources permit.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that a delay of the nature set out in this Question is normal, or is this gentleman particularly unfortunate?

Mr. Bevan: This citizen has been prevented from obtaining or has been unable to obtain, an aural aid for many years. We have issued 100,000 aural aids, and we are providing them first for individuals who need them urgently on medi-


cal grounds, or for the purposes of employment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that people of this age must expect to wait three years?

Mr. Bevan: People of this age never had a chance before to have these aids.

Mr. Frederic Harris: asked the Minister of Health whether he will expedite the delivery of a hearing aid to Mrs. M. McCarthy, 5 Buckingham Avenue, Thornton Heath, who was examined in November, 1948.

Mr. Bevan: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does not the Minister agree that a wait of some two years for the result of an examination is far too long?

Mr. Bevan: It would be very desirable to be able to hand out hearing aids immediately. We have handed out over 100,000 of them, and the limitation now is in skilled personnel to examine the patients.

Male Nurses (Training)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Health what negotiations he has had with the General Nursing Council to see if the hospital training received by men during their period of service with the Armed Forces can be more fully recognised in attaining qualification as a State registered nurse; and if he will make a statement on the correspondence sent to him on this subject.

Mr. Bevan: This matter has been discussed with the General Nursing Council and the Service Departments at various times. The question of what, if any, remissions of training can be granted is entirely for the General Nursing Council. The list of concessions granted by them is rather long, and I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the concessions:

1. The rules of the General Nursing Council provide:

(a) for a remission of six months in the period of training for State registration to members of the Armed Forces who have had not less than two years experience since 3rd September, 1939, in the nursing of the physically sick in hospital under the super-

vision of trained nurses. Application must be made within six months of discharge from the Forces. The trainee may take the preliminary examination on the termination of six months' training instead of on completion of one year;
(b) for persons who have attained the rank of Nursing Orderly Class I in the Army, or the equivalent rank in the Navy or Royal Air Force and have had not less than two years' experience in the nursing of the physically sick in hospital under the supervision of trained nurses, to be allowed to qualify for registration by a 12 months' intensive course.
(c) for men who have undergone a course of not less than three years' nursing instruction in accordance with the syllabus of the Council, in the service of the Admiralty, the Army Council or the Air Council, to be allowed to take the examinations for State registration without further training.

2. Arrangements have been made between the General Nursing Council and the Service Departments to enable nursing orderlies in the Army and equivalent ranks in the other Services, during their period of service, to train for the preliminary examination for State registration in Service hospitals approved by the General Nursing Council.

Ambulance Service (Cost)

Mr. Amory: asked the Minister of Health to what extent the estimated cost of about £8 million for the Ambulance Service for the current year is likely to be exceeded, and what steps he is taking to ensure greater economy and efficiency in the use of this service.

Mr. Bevan: I trust it will not be exceeded at all, but I am about to put before the bodies concerned certain suggestions to secure greater economy and efficiency in the use of the Service.

Mr. Amory: Will not the Minister agree that there is a certain divided responsibility which makes these matters rather difficult in this respect? Doctors and hospitals order, and the county councils pay.

Mr. Bevan: There is a certain divided responsibility, but I am not sure at the moment it is leading to additional expense. However, we are making inquiries.

Hospital Patients (Examination)

Mr. F. Longden: asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the common practice, in teaching hospitals, for patients to be examined intimately by groups of students, often


against the natural inclination of the patients; and if he will issue a general regulation to the effect that the consent of every patient must be obtained before an examination may be performed.

Mr. Bevan: I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the existing arrangements, or of any sufficient reason for suggesting they should be changed. My hon. Friend will realise that it is vital that medical students should have adequate clinical training.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is it not also right that the patient should be consulted before his body is employed as a nationalised exhibit?

Mr. Bevan: That is a very wicked statement to make. It has always been the case that in teaching hospitals medical students must be taught with the clinical material available, that material being human beings. The hon. and gallant Member ought to have a greater sense of public responsibility than to make a statement like that.

Cortisone

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Health when he expects to make general use of cortisone in the hospitals.

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Health what is his policy with regard to recommendations by doctors for patients to be treated with cortisone.

Mr. Bevan: The use of this drug is still experimental, and wider use must depend on greater knowledge.

Wing Commander Bullus: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the extent of the demand for this drug by general practitioners, and will he comment on the case in my constituency to which I have directed his attention?

Mr. Bevan: I hope that there is no demand for this drug by general practitioners at the moment, because the consequences of taking the drug have not yet been established. Until experiments are concluded, it is not possible to make this drug generally available.

Mr. Russell: Is the Minister aware that, in the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend has drawn his attention, three

doctors who knew the patient recommended the use of this drug; that one specialist did not recommend its use, and that the right hon. Gentleman took the advice of the specialist and not of the three doctors?

Dr. Hill: Is the Minister aware that in one experiment in this country some encouraging results have been obtained? Will he do all he can to obtain further supplies of this drug?

Mr. Bevan: I am quite ready to obtain further supplies of the material to enable further experiments to be made, but the hon. Member knows that it is far too early to arouse expectations about the use of this drug.

Hospitals (Private Patients)

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Health what are the reasons for the increases for private ward treatment in the Merseyside hospitals, where the costs have increased by 100 per cent. from July, 1948, up to September, 1950.

Mr. Bevan: Partly owing to increased costs, and partly to the fact that the charge now covers full cost in all cases.

Mr. Oakshott: As the use of private wards must relieve the pressure on public wards, will the Minister consider the possibility of a reduction in the charges for private wards?

Mr. Bevan: That would really mean that a larger number of people would be able to pay for beds at the expense of others.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that local opinion is that administrative costs are unduly high and that if he inquired into this, he might make a great deal of saving?

Mr. Bevan: I will certainly make inquiries to see whether that is so in a particular instance, but a proper share of the administrative costs must be set off against the pay beds.

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that patients who, by reason of having to wait many months before they can be admitted to hospital, agree to go in as fee paying patients, are admitted with little delay;


that this is a cause of dissatisfaction among other patients awaiting treatment; that in some instances it causes financial hardship; and if he will take steps to end this practice.

Mr. Bevan: If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any cases known to him where admission was medically urgent and was refused, I shall be only too glad to look into them.

Mr. Oliver: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have sent him particulars of a case where a patient who was waiting for 11 months to go into hospital, because of the long wait became a private patient and was able to enter hospital in less than 11 days?

Mr. Bevan: If the patient was not suffering from anything requiring urgent medical treatment no problem arises, but he had no right to go into hospital ahead of people in greater medical need.

Mr. Oliver: But if the patient was not suffering from something requiring urgent medical attention, why could he enter the hospital as a paying patient in under 11 days?

Mr. Bevan: I quite agree with my hon. Friend about that, and if he will send me particulars I will investigate the matter. I am far from satisfied with the way in which it is possible for doctors to get their private patients into hospitals.

Part-time Specialists, London

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Minister of Health how many part-time specialists in the London area are holding more than nine, and more than 11, sessions weekly, whether with or without pay; and how many of those are engaged in the speciality of psychiatry.

Mr. Bevan: Disregarding honorary contracts, for which records are not available, about 341 part-time specialists in the Metropolitan area are giving the equivalent of over nine half days, and 79 the equivalent of over 11. The corresponding figures for consultant psychiatrists are three and none.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree

that if—as is true—certain over-zealous practitioners are putting in more than 11 sessions a week, for some of which they are not being paid, they are blocking promotion for those under training and, therefore, doing the profession no good? Will he make arrangements to check this practice?

Aureomycin

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Health how much aureomycin was imported from the United States of America during the nine months period ended 30th September, 1950.

Mr. Bevan: One hundred and forty thousand and seventy-five grammes, apart from small quantities for sample and trial purposes.

Sir T. Moore: As I am sure the Minister knows that this is regarded by the medical profession as a life-saving drug in the case of bronchial diseases, how can the Government justify spending millions of dollars on importing tobacco while limiting the import of the drug?

Mr. Bevan: I would urge hon. Members not always to believe everything they hear about every drug which is produced on the other side of the Atlantic.

Prescriptions

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the evidence received from the Joint Pricing Committee for England that the average cost of prescriptions per person from 1st January to 30th September, 1949, was 11s. 4½d., he is prepared to review the present dispensing capitation fee paid to doctors who supply medicines to patients on their National Health Service lists.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. The figure quoted and the fee are not comparable. In addition to the fee, pro rata payment is made to the doctors for certain individual items supplied.

Mr. Turton: Is there not a great disparity between the capitation fee of 6s. 6d. a week and the average cost of prescriptions at 11s. 4½d.?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Gentleman will look at my reply he will see why the figures are not comparable.

Doctors' Lists

Mr. Maudling: asked the Minister of Health how far under his regulations executive councils, in using their power to bring the excess list of a doctor within the prescribed maximum, allow a margin of 5 per cent. for contingencies.

Mr. Bevan: This is a matter for the discretion of the executive council in the light of local circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Waiting List, Thirsk

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are about 500 families on the waiting list for houses in the area of Thirsk Rural District Council; that the allocation of 40 houses to be built during the year to 31st December, 1951, is insufficient to enable the council to carry out the housing programme already projected for that year; and what reply he has made to the request of the council that the allocation be increased to 56.

Mr. Bevan: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes." The allocation made takes into account the number of prepared sites likely to be available, and the council have been told that if their progress with site preparation so justifies, an application for an additional allocation will be sympathetically considered, although the council failed to take up their full allocation in 1948 and in 1949.

Mr. Turton: Does that reply mean, in effect, that they will be allowed to build the 56 houses which they planned for this year?

Mr. Bevan: It means that as they make progress a further allocation will be considered.

Improvement Grants, West Riding

Mr. Douglas Houghton: asked the Minister of Health whether the municipal borough council of Todmorden and the urban district councils of Sowerby Bridge, Elland, and Hebden Royd, respectively, have decided to operate Section 20 of the Housing Act, 1949, concerning improvement grants to persons other than local authorities.

Mr. Bevan: All the local authorities named have been prepared to consider applications for improvement grants from private persons under Section 20 of the Housing Act, 1949, but I understand that Hebden Royd Urban District Council have now resolved not to entertain any further applications for the time being.

Brick Prices, Dorset

Mr. Digby: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that local authorities in Dorset have to pay higher prices for the delivery of bricks by the British Transport Commission than would be the case if they were able to have them delivered by private hauliers; and since this increases the cost of local housing schemes, whether he will make representations to the Transport Commission to have these prices reduced.

Mr. Bevan: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." As regards the second part, if a local authority feel that the British Transport Commission's charges are too high they should take the matter up with the Commission.

Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that in one village the cost of housing has been put up by £392 as a result of these charges?

Mr. Bevan: I believe that the particular scheme about which the hon. Member has complained in correspondence has been passed on to the Commission for investigation.

Emergency Huts

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Health how many huts were erected under Circular 134–44, dated 4th October, 1944; how many have been demolished; and how many are still occupied.

Mr. Bevan: Five thousand three hundred and eighty-nine huts were erected; 1,094 have been demolished, or are in course of demolition; the remainder are still occupied.

Mr. Black: In view of the fact that these huts were described as "emergency temporary accommodation," does not the Minister think it undesirable that they should still be in use after five or six years' occupation?

Mr. Bevan: We always regarded many of the huts as emergency huts, and I am anxious to see them demolished as soon as possible.

Rating of Site Values (Committee)

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Health whether the Erskine-Simes Committee on the Rating of Site Values has yet reported.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now received the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Rating of Site Values.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir.

Mr. Hutchinson: Does the Minister recall that when I asked him this Question last May he informed me that the Committee were then considering their draft report? Will he now take steps to expedite the report?

Mr. Bevan: I cannot interfere with the investigations of the Committee. This is an extremely complicated matter, as the Committee is obviously discovering.

Statistics

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Health what was the number of slum dwellings cleared and the number of permanent new units of accommodation built in the five years to the most convenient date in 1939, and the five years to the most convenient date in 1950, respectively.

Mr. Bevan: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


5 years ended 31st March, 1939



Unfit houses demolished
219,697


Not to be used for human habitiation, or part closed
25,575


Houses completed:



Local authorities
345,404


Private enterprise
1,324,577


5 years ended 31st March, 1950



Number of houses demolished is not known.



Houses completed:



Local authorities
446,178


Private enterprise and Housing Associations
106,469


Re-built war-destroyed:



Local authorities
8,289


Private enterprise
30,919


Government Departments
8,008



599,863

Crown Lands (Small Houses, Rents)

Sir Austin Hudson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the hardship imposed on tenants of small houses built on Crown Lans who are not subject to the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts; and whether he will take steps to give them such protection during the period in which the acute housing shortage continues.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. This point has been noted for consideration when the Rent Restrictions Acts are reviewed, and meantime I am prepared to authorise the exercise of requisitioning powers by local authorities in appropriate cases to avoid the creation of hardship.

Sir A. Hudson: Does not the Minister think that it might be possible to introduce legislation this Session? I do not think he will find it controversial on this small point.

Mr. Bevan: I am happy to hear that an amendment of the Rent Restrictions Acts will not be controversial.

Building Licences

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether he will permit the builder in Tynemouth, whose name has been supplied to him, who has the labour, the material and the land, to build houses for sale to the appropriate local authority in addition to their permitted quota.

Mr. Bevan: It is for the local authority to decide what arrangements they will make for the building of their houses, and they have given no indication that they wish to enter into the arrangement suggested. The question of an additional allocation does not, therefore, arise.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised what has been done in his speech during the housing debate, and the fact that he refused the application submitted by the builder to me without consulting the local authority, will he please reconsider this question?

Mr. Bevan: I suggest that the hon. Member reads my answer.

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Health whether he requires local


authorities to supply his Department with a return of the number of licences issued by them for private house building for sale; and whether his Department take steps to ensure that the licence granted is actually taken up by the person to whom it is issued.

Mr. Bevan: Local authorities furnish figures of licences issued, and they are published in the Housing Return. On the second part of the Question, I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of Circular 108–50 issued to local authorities on 6th November.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in some instances, where a person to whom a licence has been issued finds that he is unable to take it out, it is handed to the builder for his disposal instead of going back to the local authority?

Mr. Bevan: I will have a look at that.

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Health whether he is willing to grant licences, additional to the local authority allocation, to individuals who propose to build their own houses without using any additional labour.

Mr. Lionel Heald: asked the Minister of Health why he insists upon building licences in the case of individuals who are ready and anxious to build their own houses, using no labour beyond that of their own hands and no licensed building materials.

Mr. Bevan: A licence for the erection of a new house by a private person is required under Defence Regulation 56A. All licences issued by local authorities must come out of the total allocations made to them. I know of no scheme under which a concession of the kind desired by the hon. Members could be made which would not be liable to extensive abuse. I am willing to consider any suggestions which the hon. Members may wish to make.

Mr. Alport: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is reported that a scheme was produced by the British Legion whereby houses were built by members and were in addition to the local authority houses? If that is the case could that be extended to individuals?

Mr. Bevan: The argument arises as to whether these houses could be additional to the housing programme. If they could be made additional then the housing programme could be extended to that extent. We have had these schemes before and they have been very largely abused.

Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the scheme operating in Sweden where a Socialist Government encourages this sort of thing and Socialist councils employ clerks of works to help people who want to build their own houses?

Mr. Bevan: I am willing to consider suggestions whereby houses can be built under supervision, but that is not the Question on the Order Paper.

Bricks, Louth (Supply)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, although the Louth Rural District Council allocated a contract for the building of houses at Tetney in May this year, the contractor has so far been unable to obtain bricks to make a start; and if he will give absolute priority to housing on all brick production.

Mr. Bevan: The necessary bricks have now been obtained. As regards the second part of the Question, general arrangements already exist to deal with any difficulties in supplies that may arise.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that the bricks were put on the site three days after I put down my Question? Can he assure me that, as far as North Lincolnshire is concerned, the housing programme will not be held up through a lack of bricks?

Mr. Bevan: If there is any connection between the Question appearing on the Order Paper and delivery of the bricks, it reveals the efficacy of the House of Commons, but in so far as the bricks were not ordered earlier, it reveals the inefficiency of the private enterprise contractor.

Commander Galbraith: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long the bricks were on order?

Mr. Bevan: I do not know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not my business to be a shadow for every incompetent building contractor.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Minister of Health what approaches have been made by the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne to his Department with regard to an increased allocation of houses for the city; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevan: The answer to the first part of the Question is "None." As regards the second part the allocation for 1951 takes account of the large number of houses in the 1950 allocation which have not been started. The matter will be subject to review in the light of the progress made next year.

Mr. Wilkes: Is it correct to say that the Newcastle allocation for housing in 1951 is 1,000, which is the same as for those on the city housing list last year, and that when the council is able to complete round about 1,000 houses in one year, the figure will be reviewed?

Mr. Bevan: I must not tie myself to a figure, but I have said that when they make progress with their allocation a further allocation will be made.

Alcester House, Shaftesbury

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Health when his Department sold Alcester House; and what was the price.

Mr. Bevan: I gave consent on 1st August to the sale of this property by the Dorset County Council. It has not yet been sold.

Mr. Crouch: In that case, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why his Parliamentary Secretary told me last Monday that it was sold?

Mr. Bevan: I understand from my hon. Friend that he did not make that statement.

Non-Residential Accommodation

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Health if he will examine the regulations and practice whereby living accommodation is transferred into offices and used for other non-residential purposes; and if he will take steps to stop this substantial drain on available residential accommodation.

Mr. Bevan: I am satisfied that Defence Regulation 68CA is effectively used to contend the diversion of housing accommodation to other purposes.

Old Persons' Dwellings

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: asked the Minister of Health how many old persons dwellings are under construction; and how many have been completed in the post-war housing programme.

Mr. Bevan: No separate record is kept of housing accommodation provided specifically for old persons.

Mr. Winterbottom: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many houses are inhabited by one old person living alone and that the houses become a burden to such old people, who would be glad to move to a smaller house? Will he use his powers of persuasion with local authorities to build a fair proportion of special old persons' dwellings, and thus set free a number of family-size dwellings with the use of comparatively small quantities of material?

Mr. Bevan: If my hon. Friend will look at HANSARD he will see that last week I gave an answer about the number of houses of this type which have been constructed. Also, last year I issued a circular to local authorities calling attention to the facts which the Opposition have only just now discovered.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In view of this remarkable appearance of a Daniel come to judgment, will the Minister have another look at his figures and, in particular, the very low percentage of the small houses which he gives as against the much larger percentage for the larger houses?

Mr. Bevan: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will consult his friends who serve on the Central Housing Advisory Committee, he will discover that this matter has been before us for some time and that the local authorities have been urged to give special attention to it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In view of the Minister's well-known power of invective in matters in which he is interested, will he apply some of it to the speeding up of this desirable reform?

Mr. Bevan: We have speeded it up, and the number of houses in this class is rapidly rising.

Dwelling-houses (Valuation)

Mr. J. R. Bevins: asked the Minister of Health what progress he has made


towards implementing the central valuation provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948, as regards dwelling-houses.

Mr. Bevan: Following the transfer on 1st February this year of the work of rating valuation to valuation officers of Inland Revenue, an effective start has been made with the task of measuring dwelling-houses for the purpose of the new valuation lists to come into force in 1952 or 1953. I have issued the statements of hypothetical 1938 costs of construction which had to be prepared for each rating area, and copies are obtainable at the offices of rating authorities. The statements of 1938 site costs are being prepared and will be issued when they are ready.

Mr. Bevins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statements to which he has referred allow two modern houses of exactly the same size and not very different construction to be given 1938 hypothetical building costs of anything from £600 to £1,200? Will he say how, in those circumstances, we can have uniformity of valuation?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper, I will try to give him an answer.

Nottingham

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Health to what degree the City of Nottingham has succeeded in completing its allocation of house building for the last 12 months.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on housing allocations given to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), on 9th November, of which I am sending him a copy. As stated in that reply, information as to local progress is available in the published Housing Returns.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RETROSPECTIVE PAYMENTS)

Mr. Amory: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to stop the growing tendency for Government grants, wages awards and other settlements to be made retrospective for long periods, as such action makes

accurate estimating and rate-raising by local authorities impossible.

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will let me know the particular instances he has in mind, I will have them looked into.

Mr. Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that, apart from the convenience to local authorities, there is an old saying, "Bis dat qui cito dat," which, I am told by technical advisers, is relevant to this problem?

Mr. Bevan: Perhaps the hon. Member will take me aside afterwards and translate that. It is always undesirable for wage negotiations to last so long that retrospective demands accumulate.

POWER STATION, BATTERSEA

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Health what report the chief alkali inspector made on the pollution of the atmosphere by gases from the British Electricity Authority's generation station at Battersea after his last visit.

Mr. Bevan: The report pointed out certain shortcomings, which I understand have since been rectified.

Commander Noble: Will the Minister give this matter his close attention?

Mr. Bevan: indicated assent.

UNITED NATIONS (INTERNATIONAL FORCE)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the new situation arising from the fact that the United Nations organisation is now engaged in military operations and is contemplating setting up an international force to put down aggression and save peace by military means, His Majesty's Government will consider limiting the British quota of that international force to men volunteering to serve under the flag of the United Nations.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. The relevant clause of the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 3rd November, to which I presume my hon. Friend refers, recommends each member state to maintain within its national


armed forces elements so trained, organised and equipped that they could be made available promptly in response to a recommendation of the General Assembly or the Security Council. I do not consider that a limitation of the composition of such elements to volunteers would be either practicable or desirable.

Mr. Davies: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that some of the countries attached to the United Nations have already accepted the principles set forth in my Question? Will he reconsider the matter?

The Prime Minister: I do not think so, Sir.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the number of volunteers for Korea was negligible, and will he consider limiting our foreign commitments to those who are prepared to join up?

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Amusement Equipment

Mr. Bell: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give an assurance that every effort is being made to obtain British amusement devices and machinery for use in connection with the South Bank Exhibition of the Festival of Britain before having recourse to foreign sources of supply.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): There will be no amusement devices in the South Bank Exhibition. Mechanical exhibits or displays will all be British made.

Air Commodore Harvey: Has the Lord President studied the details which I sent him of fun fair equipment made in Congleton by a firm which exports it to the United States?

Mr. Morrison: That does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement in today's "Daily Herald" that men are proceeding abroad to buy amusement machinery never before seen in Europe? Can he say why he thinks that Coney Island

equipment is suitable for a Festival of Britain and will attract Americans to these shores?

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate the anxiety of some hon. Gentlemen opposite to do all they can to damage the Festival of Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I said "some"—but this Question does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

Housing, London

Mr. Crouch: asked the Lord President of the Council how many housing units have been lost in London to make way for the Festival of Britain.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Festival of Britain has not involved any direct or calculable loss of housing units in London or elsewhere. At Lansbury, where the Festival of Britain is holding its Exhibition of Architecture, 444 new housing units will have been built by September, 1951.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend say whether, in view of the hostility shown by the Opposition to the Festival of Britain, he can still count upon their co-operation to make it a success?

Mr. Speaker: The purpose of Questions is not to express a particular point of view, which is what the hon. Member is doing, I think.

Mr. Braine: While there is no hostility whatsoever—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—is the Lord President aware of the very great resentment felt in the country that dollars which could provide timber for 300 houses are being allocated for the purpose of buying amusement machinery?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know how that question arises; it has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Malcolm MacPherson.

Mr. Awbery: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Opposition are for or against the Festival?

Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question.

PRESS COUNCIL

Mr. Driberg: asked the Lord President of the Council what steps are now being taken to set up a Press Council as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Press.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am sorry to say that I have little further to report to the House. I was recently informed by the Secretary of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association that he was not at present in a position to state when any definitive result would be forthcoming from the discussions between the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society regarding the setting up of a Press Council. He explained that the draft proposals which were under examination by the two bodies at the time of my answer to Questions on 9th March had not received general support in the discussions and that, in an endeavour to reconcile the divergent views in both organisations, another committee had been formed for the purpose of preparing an alternative scheme.
Hon. Members will recall that in June, 1949, the Royal Commission recommended that a General Council of the Press should be established by the Press itself, and that on 28th July, 1949, the House unanimously approved a Motion to the effect that it would welcome all possible action on the part of the Press to give effect to the Commission's conclusions and recommendations.
The Government naturally assumed that, in these circumstances, the newspaper proprietors would think it right, in consultation with representatives of editors and other journalists, to give urgent consideration to the report of the Royal Commission with a view to the early formulation of agreed proposals for action. I trust that I shall be speaking for all sections of the House when I say that, in view of the unanimous Motion which the House approved nearly 18 months ago, it does not seem to me that the proprietors have acted with the full sense of urgency which Parliament was entitled to expect of them. I hope, however, that they will not keep the House and the public waiting much longer.

Mr. Driberg: While supporting very strongly what my right hon. Friend has just said, may I ask him if he will also

consider pointing out to the N.P.A. that it would have been an advantage if this Council had been in existence to investigate, for instance, the recent dismissal of the editor of "Picture Post" for daring to try to print a factual report on the brutal treatment of prisoners in Korea?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be putting forward a particular point of view. That is not the object of Questions, the purpose of which is to ask for information only.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. I am asking my right hon. Friend if he would point something out to the N.P.A. Surely that arises out of this Question.

Mr. Deedes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Press Council or the Labour Party will be responsible for roving correspondents?

DOMESTIC HEATING (RESEARCH)

Mr. I. J. Pitman: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is now in a position to give, from the facts obtained by the Building Research Centre, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the analysis of the results of research as to the over-all percentage of efficiency of heat from the raw coal delivered to a house with a flue wholly within the house for coal, for gas and coke and electricity, all with modern appliances.

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that I am unable to give this analysis at the moment, but I hope to be able to write to the hon. Member shortly.

Mr. Pitman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that information will be available and whether it will be generally published?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that last point and will get the information as soon as I can. I do not think that it will take long.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Keeling: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that on the last 24 Sitting days, ending on Thursday, 9th November, on which Questions were answered orally, the


Ministry of Health was only reached once, the Admiralty, the Ministry of Education and Postmaster-General twice, the Air Ministry and Commonwealth Relations Office three times; whether he knows that of 44 Questions put to the Treasury for oral answer in the present Session up to and including 9th November not one was reached; and whether he will ask the House to increase the time allotted to Questions.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware of the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not think that an increase in the time allotted to Questions would be desirable. As you, Sir, have explained, right hon. and hon. Members can either put many Questions and few supplementaries or few Questions and many supplementaries. I think that this difficulty would be overcome if right hon. and hon. Members were to follow your advice and ask fewer supplementaries.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Leader of the House aware that again on Tuesday of this week the Questions to the Treasury were not reached, so that altogether, during the present Session, out of 81 Questions which have been put to the Treasury for oral answer, not one has been reached? Is the right hon. Gentleman not under an obligation to seek a remedy for this enforced silence of hon. Members who wish to question one of the most important Departments?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep that point in mind. It depends, of course, partly upon how many Questions are put down to the Minister who precedes the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Watkinson: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a 15-minute extension might be given when the Departments of State whose names are printed in black on the Order of Questions are not reached?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. This is really within the control of the House and I am sure that if we extended the time and thereby curtailed debates, we should have trouble the other way. In my earlier years in the House, somehow we used to get through the Questions on the Order Paper and have a second calling.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even if he accepted the suggestion of adding 15 or any other number of minutes to the time allotted to Questions, that would afford no guarantee that the Questions to any particular Minister would be reached?

Mr. Morrison: That is quite true.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: As the co-operation of back benchers has been requested by Mr. Speaker, will the Lord President consider communicating with his Front Bench colleagues so that they, In turn, may curtail their answers, which in some cases are inordinately long?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep that point in mind, remembering, also, the Question which I answered just now.

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEALS

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Lord President of the Council from which Dominions appeals may now be made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mr. H. Morrison: Appeals lie to His Majesty in Council from Australia, New Zealand and Ceylon, and also from Canada from judgments pronounced in judicial proceedings that commenced before 23rd December, 1949.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Wool Prices

Mr. Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the average price received by his Department for Dorset down wool and Dorset horn wool on the resale of the 1949 wool clip.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The average prices per lb. received for Dorset down wool and Dorset horn wool on the sale of the 1949 wool clip were 65½d. and 59d., respectively, for washed wool and 46½d and 49d., respectively, for greasy wool.

Mr. Digby: In view of the profits to the Government which this shows, will the Minister consider taking steps to return a fair and adequate share to the producer?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member must be aware that the price to producers is a guaranteed price. It is not necessarily based upon market demand, but is based upon the cost of production. It also isolates the farmers from wide fluctuations.

Rabbits

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture the percentage of supply to demand of cymag for the destruction of rabbits, as at 30th September, 1950.

Mr. T. Williams: I am informed by the manufacturers that of the orders received during the year ended 30th September, 1950, 94.8 per cent, had been delivered on that date.

Sir T. Moore: As it is admitted that rabbits are a menace to farmers, would the right hon. Gentleman not give greater support or encouragement to manufacturers to manufacture this fairly humane method of their destruction?

Mr. Williams: I understand that the demand for the 1950 summer was double that of 1949, so that the manufacturers have increased their output enormously.

Publications Salesmen, West Midlands

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture the cost per annum to his Department of the two men who were selling official publications in the Kidderminster Cattle Market on 10th October, 1950; how many such salesmen are employed in the West Midlands; and the total cost per annum.

Mr. T. Williams: The two men referred to are the only persons employed in the West Midlands on the sale and distribution of the Ministry's technical publications to farmers. They operate in six counties and the average total cost per annum is about £1,400 for salaries, travelling and subsistence.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the Minister realise that all these technical publications are in any case available from any reputable stationer or newsagent? In these circumstances is it necessary to continue the employment of these commercial travellers?

Mr. Williams: Were it not necessary, we should not employ them. It is the fact, however, that we are very anxious that technical documents should be placed in the hands of farmers, whom we are asking to increase the output of agricultural produce by 1952 by £100 million over 1938.

Mr. John Hay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is necessary to have two men to do this work? Would not one do it equally well?

Mr. Williams: Because two men can cover six counties far better than one.

Mr. Osborne: Could not the Minister get the National Farmers' Union to do the work for him for nothing?

Brisley Green (Cultivation)

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture what action he proposes to take in view of the correspondence sent to him from Brisley Parish Council regarding the future cultivation of Brisley Green.

Mr. T. Williams: As my hon. Friend is aware, part of Brisley Green, which has been cultivated under emergency powers, will be derequisitioned in 1951. Since this is common land, it can, after that date, only be used for the purpose of the common rights which exist over it, and cultivation will not be possible unless those concerned take steps under existing common legislation to extinguish the common rights. Suggestions as to possible action by the local interests were included in my letter of 11th November to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dye: If the parish council take the appropriate steps under the Law of Property Act, 1925, to enable this common to continue under cultivation, will my right hon. Friend give them his approval?

Mr. Williams: They certainly would not be shown any hostility.

Rams (Designated Land)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) if he will amend the Ram Control Regulations, 1950, so that the blackface rams are not prohibited from being on designated land until 1st October;
(2) why, under the Ram Control Regulations, 1950, blackface rams are prohibited from being on designated land from 16th January until the end of March.

Mr. T. Williams: I am prepared to consider any representations from sheep breeders for amending the periods prescribed by the Control of Rams Regulations, 1950, during which rams must not be allowed on designated land. The object of prohibiting persons from allowing rams to be on this class of land in certain counties in the North of England from 16th January until the end of March is to prevent lambs being born unduly late in the year.

Mr. Spearman: is the Minister aware that a good many farmers prefer a late lamb to no lamb at all? With regard to the earlier period, is he aware that blackface moorland ewes are not in a position to interest rams until 1st October? That being so, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this restriction on the movements of rams, which seriously inconveniences farmers, is quite unnecessary?

Mr. Williams: I am quite willing to listen to representations made by the National Farmers' Union.

Gin Traps

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has yet reached a decision as to whether to make the use of the gin trap illegal.

Mr. T. Williams: The gin is the most efficient trap at present available for catching rabbits and so long as this is so I would not propose to interfere with its use in those conditions where it is still legal.

Sir T. Moore: As it is universally agreed that the gin trap is a barbarous instrument which is used for trapping rabbits, would the Minister not assuage public opinion by supporting more humane traps, such as the Sawyer trap, or any other methods that are well known to him and to us for destroying rabbits?

Mr. Williams: I have told the hon. and gallant Member on several occasions that i; a more efficacious trap can be made available. I shall be happy to have it examined.

Irish Cattle (Sea Transit)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consult with the authorities in Eire with a view to arranging not to ship cattle to this

country when severe gales are forecast, in view of the fact that 40 cattle died from suffocation or exhaustion due to the severe weather, during one voyage in September, and five had to be destroyed immediately upon arrival on account of their conditions.

Mr. T. Williams: I understand that the Irish regulations already provide that animals shall not be carried on any voyage if, in the judgment of the master of the vessel, there are reasonable grounds for anticipating that owing to adverse weather conditions the voyage would be attended by serious injury or suffering to, or loss of life among, the animals.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the very severe punishment which is inflicted on these animals in such a journey, and as these incidents have repeatedly occurred, would my right hon. Friend consider having these animals humanely slaughtered in Ireland before their importation into this country?

Mr. Williams: That is a matter for the authorities in Southern Ireland to consider.

Wages and Prices

Mr. Nally: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement as to the reply he has made or proposes to make to the National Farmers' Union request that the recent increased wage awards for agricultural workers shall be forthwith met by the consumer in higher price levels for farm products.

Mr. T. Williams: After consultation with the leaders of the National Farmers' Union the Government have decided to defer, until the annual review in February next, the question of any adjustments of prices either of crops to be harvested in 1951 or for livestock and livestock products, on the understanding (i) that prices of the 1951 crops will then be revised in order to meet the increased costs of production arising from the recent increase in the minimum agricultural wage in England and Wales and the prospective increase in Northern Ireland in accordance with the procedure agreed between the Government and the Farmers' Unions in November, 1946, for the conduct of special reviews; (ii) that when prices of livestock and livestock products for the year commencing 1st April, 1951, have been fixed


in the normal way, there will (for that year only) be added to such prices the equivalent of the increased wage costs of such products during the period from mid-November to 31st March next.
In reaching this decision the Government have had regard to a number of factors, including the period in the farming price year when the wages increase takes effect, the rejection by the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board of an application for an increase in the agricultural minimum wage in that country, and the desirability of avoiding any increase, at this stage of the financial year, in the provision made in the national accounts for the cost of guaranteeing the prices fixed in March last.
I am glad to say that the National Farmers' Union, with a commendable recognition of the adverse effect of any price changes at this time on the general economic position, have accepted this decision.

Mr. Nally: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are glad that on this particular matter the Government and the industry itself have placed the needs of the consumers first, and will this not serve an admirable precedent for discussion in February?

Mr. Williams: I hope so?

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: My hon. Friends will naturally want to consider the Minister's statement very carefully, but may I ask two questions: Can the House infer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, first, that the principle of the special price review has been maintained in its entirety; and second, that the present difficulties, which my hon. Friends realise, will not be taken as a precedent for postponing the application of the special price review until the next annual price review?

Mr. Williams: It is perfectly true that the present price review arrangements remain intact, but intimation has already been given that negotiations will be entered into with the possibility of a review of the arrangements of 1946, which do not necessarily satisfy present-day requirements.

Sir T. Dugdale: And this is not to be taken as a precedent for postponing any special price review in the future?

Mr. Williams: Certainly not. As I have intimated to the hon. Baronet, negotiations will take place on how to avoid conflicts in the future on special reviews.

Feedingstuffs, Leek (Supply)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to make available additional feedingstuffs for the hill farmers in the Leek district because of the failure of many of them to get in their harvests this year.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) on 9th November.

CORACLE FISHING, WALES

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the setting up of the West Wales River Board, how far it is possible for the coracle fishermen on the River Teifi to apply for a limited number of fresh licences for salmon fishing.

Mr. T. Williams: The by-law regulating coracle fishing on the River Teifi will continue in force when the Fishery Board's functions are taken over by the South West Wales River Board. Any amendment of the by-law would be a matter for the River Board, subject to confirmation by me.

Mr. Donnelly: Is it possible for any kind of inquiry to be held as a result of representations in the district?

Mr. T. Williams: I think that any statement would have to be made to the River Board before it came to my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Dollar Imports

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the sterling area imports from North America have been reduced in the last six months; and what has been the sterling area's dollar surplus in the same period.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Edwards): I would refer the hon. Member to the Board of Trade's


Report on Overseas Trade and to Tables 10 and 11 of Cmd. 8065.

Mr. Osborne: Will the figures show that the imports from the dollar area have been lower than the increase in our dollar reserves so that the figure recently given to the country was false and gave a wrong impression to the nation as to sterling-dollar position?

Mr. Edwards: No, Sir. The answer merely means that I told the hon. Gentleman where to look for the information.

Double Taxation (France)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet able to make any statement about the progress of a double taxation agreement between this country and the French Government.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): Yes Sir; I am glad to say that negotiations are almost complete and the agreement will, I hope be signed shortly.

Savings (Weekly Figures)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in the publication of the weekly savings figures, confusion is caused by including in the total stated to have been saved, the amount of interest earned on the sum already invested; and if he will return to the former method whereby the figure of money stated to have been saved is limited to the amount of new money actually put by.

Mr. Jay: No, Sir, I am not aware of any confusion and see no reason to alter the form in which the figures are presented.

Brigadier Medlicott: As in some weeks the amount withdrawn exceeds the amount put in, by one or two millions, is it not rather a subterfuge to add the accrued interest and would it not be more satisfactory to say clearly how much is put in each week and how much is taken out?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. The accrued interest is personal savings and ought to be included in the figure.

Franking Machines

Mr. Channon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements can now be made to authorise the use of franking machines in connection with the application of 2d. receipt stamps.

Mr. Jay: No, Sir.

Mr. Channon: Would not the installation of these machines save a great deal of trouble and manpower in many large firms?

Mr. Jay: I understand that it would not be so easy to detect forgery.

Mr. Channon: Is it not the same principle as the stamping machines?

British Exports, Canada

Mr. Russell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will allow exporters of British goods to Canada to retain 10 per cent. of the dollar earnings of their exports for their own use.

Mr. J. Edwards: No, Sir. Proposals of this kind have been very carefully examined, but I am satisfied that the objections are too great to justify their adoption.

Mr. Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that such a proposal would encourage our exporters to export more to Canada if they thought they would be able to spend some of the dollars earned in return?

Mr. Edwards: I agree that it is superficially rather attractive, but there is a great risk that such a scheme would cost more dollars than it would earn. It would be difficult to ensure that those people who had worked to earn dollars and those whose work enters at an early stage into the production of goods for export would receive a fair share of the reward. I think the difficulties are quite insuperable.

Wages Policy

Mr. Gunter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what official conferences he has had during the past eight weeks with the Trades Union Congress on wages policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Edwards: Presumably the hon. Member is referring to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the debate on


defence on 13th September last. This matter is under consideration by His Majesty's Ministers, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make a statement, nor has he had any conference with the Trades Union Congress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: Would the Lord President of the Council state whether he has any information to give us this afternoon about the course of business next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 20TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Committee and remaining stages of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Bill; the Superannuation Bill; and the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Bill.
TUESDAY, 21ST NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill; and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Committee stage of the European Payments Union (Financial Provisions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 22ND NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
THURSDAY, 23RD NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the European Payments Union (Financial Provisions) Bill.
Second Reading of the Festival of Britain (Sunday Opening) Bill. I am informed by the authorities of the House that the Examiner has reported to the effect that the Standing Orders relating to Private Business are not applicable.
FRIDAY, 24TH NovEmBER—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
At some convenient opportunity we shall ask the House to consider an Amendment to omit paragraph 2 of Standing Order No. 39. It is felt that the war-time arrangement enabling amendments for Committee stage of Bills to be tabled before Second Reading, necessary at a time when legislation was being passed expeditiously, is undesirable in

normal times, as it tends to concentrate the Second Reading debates on Committee points.

Mr. Churchill: Could the right hon. Gentleman state whether the vote on the question of Sunday opening under the Festival of Britain (Sunday Opening) Bill, on the Second Reading, will be a free vote of the House?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, not on the Second Reading. I did give an undertaking to the House, which, of course, will be observed, that the Bill had been framed in such a way as to make an Amendment on Committee stage—and I said the Committee stage—easy in order to challenge the point about the Sunday opening of the amusements section of the Festival Gardens, but on the Second Reading we shall have the Whips on.

Mr. Churchill: Are not the two issues very much involved in this question of Sunday opening? Would it not be simpler to allow the House to express an opinion on both of them?

Mr. Morrison: I have had some experience of free votes and it is very questionable whether it simplifies the issue, as the right hon. Gentleman and I knew during the war on the question of Sunday opening under a Defence Regulation. The issue on the Second Reading is that if the Bill were rejected none of the Festival activities, however innocent, could be opened although the body of Christian churches has taken the view that it is all right for them to be opened excepting the amusements section—[An HON. MEMBER: "Is this a Second Reading speech?"] No, I was asked a question. The Government take the view that it is right that the Whips should be on on the Second Reading, but that it should be a free vote on the Committee stage, which I believe is the point of contention.

Mr. Churchill: Cannot these matters be taken into consideration by the House as a whole? There will be no intention on our part to put on official tellers.

Mr. Morrison: What the Opposition does is, of course, their business, but the Government do attach importance to the Second Reading of the Bill, and on the Second Reading I am afraid we must have the Whips on.

Mr. Churchill: That puts it in a different category.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman may do as he likes.

Mr. Churchill: I have one more question to ask the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to certain developments taking place in Egypt and certain statements reported today in the newspapers, could the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the Foreign Secretary would feel inclined and would feel it convenient to make a statement to the House on this matter?

Mr. Morrison: I have been having a word with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and he tells me he expects to be ready to make a statement to the House early next week.

Mr. Yates: In view of the fact that a number of us on this side of the House are very disturbed at the course of international events, may I ask whether we shall have a very adequate opportunity of discussing them, including the proposed rearmament of Germany?

Mr. Morrison: I think the House knows that the question of a Debate on foreign affairs is the subject of discussion through the usual channels and, therefore, the outlook is not unhopeful.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I think I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Festival of Britain (Sunday Opening) Bill would be the second order on Thursday next. Is he satisfied that it will leave sufficient time for a very large number of hon. Members who may desire to take part?

Mr. Morrison: We shall keep that point in mind. The other business is the remaining stages of the European Payments Union Bill. I have a feeling that it is quite likely that that Bill will have been disposed of before Thursday, but if it were not, that would be a point to bear in mind.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that on matters of international relations, the usual channels have a habit of becoming a combined stream? Will he bear in mind that many of us would like an early opportunity of discussing international

relations in view of the growing peril to the peace of the world arising out of the carrying of Korean hostilities beyond the 38th Parallel?

Mr. Morrison: I am sure the usual channels will keep that point in mind. It is of course right that the usual channels should tend to become a stream because they are the peacemakers of the House.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: May I ask whether the Government are to provide time to discuss the disastrous effects, both long-term and short-term, on Malaya which arise from the imposition of increased export duties on rubber within the new arrangements, without their being submitted to local legislative councils?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I do not see daylight about that at the moment.

Mr. Lever: May I ask the Lord President of the Council a question of which I have notified him privately? On what date will he introduce the proposed Measure on leasehold reform, and will he give special priority to that Measure because of the serious anxiety that exists in this country on the problem which it seeks to remedy?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. He may be sure that I attach great importance to the point he has mentioned, and I anticipate that the Bill will be before the House quite soon.

Earl Winterton: In order to get the matter clear, will the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is not a fact that there is nothing whatever to prevent any Private Member from using his time on a Motion to discuss foreign affairs, in view of the fact that there has been a tendency in recent years to suppose that the usual channels are sacred. They are not.

Mr. Morrison: The noble Lord is quite right. I am sure he will forgive me if I have a slight bias in favour of the usual channels because I depend on them in many ways. It would be perfectly competent for a Private Member who succeeds in the Ballot to choose, for example, foreign affairs.

Mr. Porter: In view of the attitude on the benches opposite to the peace congress, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can have his complete assurance that he does not intend to find time for the introduction of legislation to ban that type of conference or meeting?

Mr. Morrison: I understand there was a suggestion from the other side of the House to that effect, but we are not the sort of Government which would do that sort of thing.

Mr. Churchill: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind some time within the next fortnight as being the limit which should be set for a discussion on foreign affairs?

Mr. Morrison: I shall do my best in that direction. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to tie myself too firmly, but I appreciate his point.

Mr. Churchill: I wanted to draw attention to the current which is flowing through the usual channels.

Mr. Marlowe: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the procedure on the Festival of Britain Bill. Is he not really under a misapprehension? He said that if the Bill did not get a Second Reading none of the parts of the Festival would be open on Sunday. The fact is that if this Bill is not passed, the opening will remain a question of the ordinary law as it stands at the moment.

Mr. Morrison: I am advised by high authority, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, that we should certainly not be safe, and that any common informer could come along and intervene. I think it is the duty of the House to face the issue.

Sir Richard Acland: On the business for Thursday, Sir, would you help us in advance by indicating to what extent on the Second Reading it will be proper for anybody to address observations to the question of opening the amusement section on Sunday afternoon, or to what extent will that point have to be retained until it is met on the Committee stage?

Mr. Morrison: I imagine there will be quite a number of observations on that point, but of course it is perfectly com-

petent for hon. Members to make observations about any part of the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. Profumo: Does the Lord Festival—[Laughter.] Does the Lord President's statement about the Festival of Britain Bill indicate that, in the opinion of the Government, if the Whips are not put on for the Second Reading, their Bill will be defeated?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I am not clear as to the procedure on Thursday. If we vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, obviously we are committed to all that is in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. Yes, if the House carries it. Therefore how can we justify to our constituents, who write to us every day saying that they want the amusement park closed but want the rest open, our opposition to it? Surely It would be better to leave out the amusement park from the Bill and bring it up as a separate issue?

Mr. Morrison: What hon. Members say to their constituents is their business. I hope they will keep themselves clear to vote on the merits of the Bill in the light of the debate. On the first point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, after his long experience in the House I am really amazed that he thinks that if a Bill is carried on Second Reading, It cannot possibly be altered in Committee.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: Will the Leader of the House say when he thinks he will be able to give some indication of the probable date of the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Morrison: I will look into the matter. I could not say at the moment but, in my new capacity of Lord Festival, it is certainly right that I should consider it.

KOREAN OPERATIONS

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): As my right hon. Friend the Lord President said in the House on 9th November, it is proposed, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement in the House from time to time on the course of operations in Korea, with particular reference to the part played by British troops.
On 28th June my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that British naval forces would be placed at the disposal of the United States authorities to operate on behalf of the United Nations. Following on this announcement those H.M. ships cruising in Japanese waters were placed at the disposal of General MacArthur. Australian ships attached to the occupation forces in Japan were similarly made available by the Australian Government, while New Zealand and Canadian naval vessels sailed for Korea on 3rd and 5th July respectively. During the five months of the campaign there has generally been a carrier, two or three cruisers and some eight destroyers and frigates of the Royal Navy in the area.
The first contact with the enemy was made at dawn on 2nd July, when an Anglo-U.S. Force including H.M. Ships "Jamaica" and "Black Swan" sank all but one of a force of six North Korean M.T.B.'s. The next day British naval aircraft went into action for the first time. Subsequently the duties of our naval forces have consisted of attacks on land targets, such as airfields and communications, blockade of the Korean coasts, provision of escorts for the supply lines between Japanese ports and Korea, and cover for the landings which took place at Pohang, Inchon and Wonsan.
The naval operations to which I have referred have been supported since early in July by two squadrons of R.A.F. Sunderland flying boats. These squadrons, operating from Japan, have maintained constant patrols in search of submarines, shipping and mines.
I now turn to the course of land operations. The South Korean capital, Seoul, fell on 30th June and the situation in the South grew increasingly serious every day.
In view of the deteriorating situation, I announced to the House on 26th July that His Majesty's Government had decided that a self-contained British land force should be prepared and despatched from the United Kingdom as soon as possible to reinforce the United Nations forces. The preparation of the British force, 29th Brigade, involved the recall of reservists, and time was required for their equipment and training. The force sailed at the beginning of October, and the leading elements of it have now arrived in Korea.

It is concentrating in South Korea and will be moving northwards shortly to take part in the main operations. One battalion is already actively engaged against guerrillas.
By 3rd August almost all the territory west of the Nakton river had been abandoned and a critical stage in the campaign had been reached. Despite the arrival of reinforcements from America, the United Nations land force was heavily outnumbered and throughout August it was subjected to incessant attacks launched by the North Koreans across the Naktong river and against Pohang in the north. These assaults were beaten back but the position of the bridgehead remained serious.
In the light of this situation and in response to a request from the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Forces in Korea, His Majesty's Government announced on the 20th August a decision to send an infantry force from Hong Kong to Korea immediately, in advance of the force being prepared in the United Kingdom. This force, 27th Brigade, comprised two battalions—the 1st Middlesex Regiment and the 1st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders—with supporting services. It arrived at Pusan, after a journey of some 1,300 miles, on the 29th August, nine days after the decision to send it had been announced. This force thus became the first ground contingent to join South Korean and United States troops in Korea.
On 3rd September General Walker, Commanding the United Nations Ground Forces in Korea, decided to put one of the battalions in the line, and two days later the Brigade was ordered to take over a sector of the Naktong River line approximately eight miles south-west of Taegu. General Walker showed every consideration in enabling the Brigade to become gradually acclimatised to battle conditions in Korea at a time when American forces were very hard pressed. About a fortnight later, during the breakout battles from the Pusan bridgehead, which followed the Inchon landing on 14th September, the 27th Brigade provided flank protection to the main American thrust towards Seoul. An Australian battalion arrived in Korea from Japan on 28th September and a few days later joined the 27th Brigade, which was then engaged in mopping up operations south of Seoul.
By the end of September the whole of Korea south of the 38th Parallel was virtually under United Nations control. General MacArthur's surrender terms were not accepted, however, and the advance continued. The 27th Brigade played a prominent part in the battles which culminated in the capture of the North Korean capital of Pyongyang.
After the capture of Pyongyang the British Commonwealth Brigade led the advance along the West Coast road. After a series of difficult river crossings it advanced towards Sinuiju, on the Manchurian border, the temporary seat of the North Korean Government. During the past three weeks resistance has stiffened and it was decided that the United States and Commonwealth forces should take up a position along the Chongchon River. At the present time the British Commonwealth Brigade is holding a bridgehead across the River, and is actively patrolling beyond it.
In all these operations our total casualties to date have been about 51 killed, including died of wounds, 158 wounded, and five missing. I should like to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to those who lost their lives and to express to their families the deep sympathy of His Majesty's Government, and, I am sure, of the whole House. All reports speak in glowing terms of the high morale, splendid bearing, and battle efficiency of the Commonwealth Forces. General MacArthur has expressed his appreciation of their achievements on more than one occasion. Furthermore, the relations which have been established between all ranks of our own Forces and the Americans have been particularly cordial.
Our task is now to bring hostilities to an end as soon as possible and to promote the establishment of a unified and democratic Korea, and we shall continue to do all we can to attain this object.
As is well known, however, the Unified Command has recently reported the presence of Chinese troops in Korea in strength. These reports, which raise issues of international importance, are now before the Security Council. This is the appropriate body to deal with such questions. His Majesty's Government are, of course, keeping in close touch with Commonwealth Governments, as well as with the United States and other friendly Governments, and will continue to do all

in their power to bring hostilities to an early conclusion and to limit the extent of such hostilities.

Mr. Churchill: We all thank God our losses have been no heavier than those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. We certainly concur with him in expressing a tribute to those who lost their lives, and the deep sympathy of the whole House to their relations and families. In view of the fact that the United States losses have been perhaps 200 times as great, would not it be well also for us to express our sympathy with their families and relations in the great sacrifices they have made in the common cause?

Mr. Shinwell: I am sure that the House is extremely gratified to hear the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, and we shall certainly be in accord with the views he has expressed.

Mr. Churchill: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he and the Foreign Secretary will constantly bear in mind the great importance of our not becoming, and of our Allies so far as we can influence their actions not becoming, too much pinned down in China or in the approaches to China at a time when the danger in Europe is undoubtedly occupying all our minds?

Mr. Shinwell: I thought that that was the sense of the latter part of my statement.

Mr. Rankin: The declaration by my right hon. Friend that the purpose is to secure a united and democratic Korea will, I am sure, be welcomed by the whole House; but I should like to ask him if he feels that that high purpose can be secured under the Presidency of Mr. Syngman Rhee?

Mr. Shinwell: I should imagine that that question does not arise from the statement I have made.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that our leading troops, to whom he has referred, the 27th Brigade, now believed to be in an area of terrible weather conditions, are suitably provided with clothing and vehicles and weapons which will work in the extreme freezing conditions which we are told exist today?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as weapons are concerned, I am advised that all the equipment required is on hand. As regards the provision of winter clothing, we are very conscious of the need for this and I can inform the House that special cold weather clothing for the 29th Brigade Group and supporting base units has already arrived in Korea. Stocks have also been dispatched for the 27th Brigade and are expected to arrive almost immediately. Meanwhile the United States authorities have been only too willing to assist in this matter and have made provision accordingly.

Mr. Low: And vehicles?

Mr. Shinwell: I have no reason to believe that there is any inadequacy as regards that type of vehicle.

Mr. George Thomas: Will the Minister tell us whether he is able to indicate to the House what British influence there is in the administration of Korea at the present time in connection with Syngman Rhee?

Mr. Shinwell: That is a matter for the United Nations.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Can the Minister say whether the numbers given of the British personnel who have been killed included the loss of life through accidental bombing by American aircraft?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I am aware I have given the total figure.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the Minister tell us if he has any figures of losses sustained by the population of South Korea? Is he aware of the statement made by Mr. William Foster on behalf of the United Nations Commission in New York last Sunday that 200,000 homes of ordinary people have been destroyed and one-tenth of the schools, and hospitals in South Korea have been destroyed; and would he be prepared to give to this House a broad human picture of the human misery which has been caused?

Mr. Thurtle: Who started it?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of the statement to which my hon. Friend has referred and if he desires information on any relevant matter he ought to put down a Question.

Earl Winterton: As it was at my suggestion that this statement was made, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give consideration to a further proposal which I put before him, namely, that he should broadcast through the B.B.C. so that the public may be made aware of the most valuable and valiant contribution which this country have made to the fighting in Korea? Is he aware that it would have the further psychological effect of diverting the attention of the public from such internal controversy as that of whether the Festival of Britain should be open on Sunday to the sombre, grim situation with which we are faced in Asia?

Mr. Shinwell: Any question of broadcasting is a matter for the Prime Minister.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any instructions were at any time given to the Commander-in-Chief in Korea as to the line, if any, at which military operations should cease—whether the 38th parallel or any line in Korea beyond that, or the Manchurian frontier, or any line of any kind? Will he also say whether, in view of the fact that the Commander-in-Chief is also de facto the Government of Japan, any steps have been taken to avoid the two functions getting mixed up?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot speak about the latter part of the question; I imagine that is a matter for the Foreign Secretary. Regarding the first part, of course, instructions are issued from time to time to the Commander-in-Chief.

Sir Peter Macdonald: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if British Red Cross units have accompanied the troops in Korea; if they are well supplied with medical equipment and if British medical personnel is also provided? Also if N.A.A.F.I. organisations are set up as well?

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the provision of canteens, which presumably is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to in the later part of his question, the answer was given by the Secretary of State for War the other day. Regarding the provision of Red Cross and ambulance equipment, I should require notice of the question.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance on behalf of the Government that every


endeavour will be made through the Security Council and the United Nations for a new democratic machine to be set up in Korea to take the place of the now defunct and discredited Syngman Rhee regime?

Mr. Shinwell: I thought that was what I had said.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a matter of deliberate Government policy that troops sent from this country were to be equipped with American equipment on arrival in Korea; and if not, is he aware of the very disturbing reports we have received of equipment with which they were issued when they left?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not quite clear to what the hon. and gallant Member refers when he says, "reports we have received."

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Reports received by some hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where from?"] The troops in Korea.

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has received information from the troops in Korea which has not yet been made available to any Service Department, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have it.

Mr. Wyatt: Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent and in what way he has been consulted as to the conduct of the campaign in Korea.

Mr. Shinwell: I obviously cannot go into details but I am frequently advised.

Squadron Leader Burden: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether winter clothing is available for the British troops in Korea, particularly in the front line; and will he also consider looking into the question of pay and allowances to National Service men serving in this area in order that they may be on a comparable level with Regular troops?

Mr. Shinwell: Apparently there is some misunderstanding, and I must make it clear that the provision of winter clothing has been made available. The last shipment will arrive on 22nd November, and will be immediately shipped to the troops. The front line troops have

already been provided with what is required. As regards the last part of the supplementary question, I replied to that the other day.

Mr. Thurtle: Has my right hon. Friend any doubt at all that the original act of aggression which caused all this slaughter and misery was the work of Soviet Russia?

Mr. Shinwell: That does not arise out of the statement.

Mr. Gammans: Referring to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House to what extent the British contingent has had to rely on the American forces for guns, transport and equipment, or are our forces adequately supplied?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot answer that question without due notice, and if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down I shall do my best to give him the information.

Mr. S. Silverman: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement, that instructions were from time to time given to the Commander-in-Chief about the line at which hostilities would cease, would be tell us when such instructions were given, what was the line beyond which hostilities were not to go, and whether the instructions given were always fully understood and complied with by the Commander-in-Chief?

Mr. Churchill: Would it not be very much better to reserve these questions which touch on foreign policy, for the debate we are going to have on that matter?

Mr. G. Thomas: Surely that is a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Shinwell: Something of the sort had occurred to me. It is impossible for me to satisfy my hon. Friend's desire for information without proper notice.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know how far my right hon. Friend's answer was influenced by observations from the other side, but my question was not a question about foreign affairs at all; it was a question about military operations, and I should have thought that my right hon. Friend when he came here to make a


statement about the course of military operations would have been prepared for questions of that kind.

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend is wrong. I was not prepared for the type of question which my hon. Friend has thought fit to put to me. Might I add that I do not require to have my mind influenced by anything said on the opposite side of the House.

Wing Commander Hulbert: Could the right hon. Gentleman clarify the figures with regard to casualties? Do they relate only to the ground forces, or do they cover the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as well.

Mr. Shinwell: They are global figures.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that adequate arrangements now exist for the speedy notification of casualties to the next-of-kin in this country, and also for the transmission of mail to and from the troops in Korea.

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I know the answer is "Yes."

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether our troops in the front line got their winter clothing before or after the cold weather started? Could I have an answer?

Mr. James Stuart: With all this talk about winter clothing, may I ask the Minister if he has satisfied himself that the men in Korea have got a reasonable supply of good rum?

Mr. Shinwell: That is a question after my own heart. I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend any information about the number of North Korean prisoners of war, and if so, can he say if there is any evidence of their Communist training?

Mr. Shinwell: I have got some information about this matter, but I have not got it here.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the British casualties were National Service men; and, secondly, in view of the reports that the North Koreans are operating jet aircraft, can he assure the House

that the United Nations aircraft are equivalent in performance?

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the first part of the supplementary question, I am afraid I could not give the information offhand. I cannot give the difference between National Service men and Regulars, but I should be glad to provide the information if the hon. and gallant Gentleman put it down. As regards our aircraft position and their operation in the area, they are giving a very good account of themselves.

Air Commodore Harvey: That is not the question I put.

Mr. Michael Foot: Referring to the latter part of the statement made by my right hon. Friend, upon which apparently he was inviting questions from the House, could he say whether it is his view that the proper body for issuing instructions to the Commander-in-Chief of the United Nations in North Korea as to where hostilities should be ended, is the Interim Committee which was set up under the Eight-Power Resolution of the United Nations; and could he say whether any such instructions have been issued, and if so, what are the dates?

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid that that is the type of question which ought to be put to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. John MacLeod: Could the Minister give any information as to the number of British or United Nations prisoners of war and their treatment by the enemy?

Mr. Shinwell: Not without notice.

Mr. Maudling: Could the Minister give the House any idea of the forces available to the United Nations command in addition to the British Commonwealth, American and South Korean forces? Are there any other nationals there?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, there are other nationals, but I could not give all the details without a Question being put on the paper.

Mr. Churchill: It would not take the right hon. Gentleman long.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us information as to the strength of the Chinese troops encountered?

Mr. Shinwell: Various figures have been presented to us from time to time, but the latest figure is between 60,000 and 70,000.

Mr. Foot: Does my right hon. Friend's reply to my previous question mean that he, as Minister of Defence, responsible for the British troops in North Korea, has had no communication with the Interim Committee of the United Nations Commission which is supposed to be issuing instructions on this matter?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not in personal communication with the body to which my hon. Friend refers.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Everybody has had his question answered or practically answered or has been given some kind of answer, but I have had none. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether our troops in the front line got the winter clothing before or after the cold weather started?

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry, but I do not know when the cold winter started.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: The right hon. Gentleman ought to know. Wake up!

Mr. Henry Strauss: Could the right hon. Gentleman either confirm or deny reports that have appeared that the jet aircraft operated by the enemy are faster than the aircraft available to the United Nations forces?

Mr. Shinwell: I hardly think it would be to the advantage of the House, the country or our troops in Korea to enter into details on a matter of that kind.

Mr. Speaker: Do not let us start a second round of questions.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN PAYMENTS UNION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Edwards): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
May I be permitted to say that this is my first assignment since I came back to the House, and quite frankly, had I been picking a subject on which to begin. I do not think, however, that I should have chosen this particular Measure, for it is certainly not the easiest one from the point of view of exposition. I hope the House will agree with me that it would be better for me in this opening speech not to seek to deploy an argument, but rather to give the House such information as I can as a basis on which it can proceed, and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reply.
This Measure provides the necessary accounting machinery to enable the United Kingdom to play its part in the operations of the European Payments Union. We debated this new payment scheme for Europe on 19th July last, when we had before us a memorandum about the proposed arrangements which had been approved by the Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. It will be remembered that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—then Minister of State for Economic Affairs—took part in that debate and described the principles on which it was proposed to establish the European Payments Union and the effect on the United Kingdom of taking part in it. I do not propose, therefore, to go over the same ground again.
Before I come to the Bill, it will be for the convenience of the House if I say something about the development of the European Payments Union itself and of the position of the United Kingdom in the Union. The Agreement for the Establishment of a European Payments Union, drafted on the basis of the principle approved by O.E.E.C. at the beginning of July, was actually signed at Paris on 19th September, 1950. It has


been published, of course, as Command Paper 8064.
The Agreement comes into force only after it has been ratified by the various signatory Governments, but it was agreed to apply it on a provisional basis as from 1st July, 1950, and the protocol giving effect to this provisional application has been published also in the same Command Paper. I ought to point out that the Swiss Government were unable to apply the provisional arrangements contemplated in this protocol until the Agreement had been ratified in accordance with their constitutional procedure. This has now taken place, and the Agreement will operate in the case of Switzerland from 1st November.
The introduction of the European Payments Union has entailed important consequences for the United Kingdom in our arrangements for dealing with sterling balances held by other member countries, and also in the necessary revision or modification of our payments arrangements with other members. May I take first the question of sterling balances. As the House is aware, we have given an undertaking that any member country which held sterling balances at the date of the inception of the Union, namely, 1st July, 1950, and finds itself in deficit with the Union on current account, should be able to draw down those balances freely to the extent necessary to cover its deficit.
At the time that we gave this undertaking, it seemed quite possible that the effect might be to throw the United Kingdom itself into a serious deficit with the Union. There was, after all, some £200 million at stake. But here we are helped by an assurance from the United States Economic Co-operation administration that they would guarantee us against any loss of gold that we might otherwise incur on this account. This arrangement was recorded in an exchange of letters between my right hon. Friend and the United States Special Representative in Europe and was published as Command Paper 8020.
In addition, we have been negotiating agreements with the holders of European sterling balances to govern the extent to which these balances might be drawn down over the next two years if the holders were in credit with the Union. Not all the countries concerned are likely

to be debtors of the Union, and the Agreement itself provides, in such cases, for mutual arrangements for the amortisation of debts to be worked out between the countries themselves. We clearly cannot stand in the way of an orderly reduction of these sterling liabilities, always consistently with our own position in the Union and with the wider interests of the Union as a whole.
On the other hand, it is not necessarily the case that the countries concerned will regard it as advantageous to themselves to run down their sterling balances in exchange for credits with the Union. Indeed, I am sure that the House will not be surprised to hear that the current trend of our balance of payments, and our surplus with the Union, which I shall be discussing presently, have, on the one hand, diminished the hesitation which we felt at an earlier stage about our own capacity to afford substantial reductions of these balances, and, on the other hand, the hesitation which other countries may themselves have previously felt about the value to them of holding on to their balances.
Turning to the individual countries concerned, we have made arrangements with France and Italy, which have been made public. France will use her sterling balances, amounting to some £28 million, for the purpose of meeting the instalments of her inter-Governmental debts to the United Kingdom which fall due this year and next year. Italy's balances amounted to nearly £60 million and we have agreed to a plan for a "target repayment" of £20 million over two years, to be brought into operation if the Italians so wish. Discussions are in progress with Portugal, whose balances amount to rather more than £80 million.
The only other substantial holder of sterling is Sweden, with balances of some £22 million, and we shall probably agree that no final decision should be taken now, and that the position will have to be reviewed next year. Apart from these four countries, which were the major holders of sterling balances on 30th June, there were one or two smaller balances, but these have been largely worked off in meeting deficits with the Union and now present no problem.
Then there is the question of our own holdings of other countries' currencies at the 30th June. The figures I shall quote


are net figures; that is to say, after offsetting the small official holdings of sterling by the countries concerned. The biggest case here was a debt of £24½ million owed to us by Denmark and we have agreed to fund the major part of that. It will be funded, under arrangements already published, in sterling over a period of 10 years, and the House will have noticed that this funding is mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum as one of the transactions to be covered by Clause 3 of the present Bill. Then there are smaller amounts owing to us from Holland, about £8 million, and Norway, about £2¾ million, and satisfactory arrangements have been made for dealing with the partial or total repayment of these debts.
Finally, the House will be interested to know that Switzerland's inability to join the Union before 1st November has meant that, instead of having to deal with a sterling liability to her on 30th June, we have recently been discussing with the Swiss the settlement of their debt to us as at 31st October, amounting to £4¾ million, owing to the fact that in these four months the payments position has gone in our favour.
As I have said, the total amount of sterling balances to be dealt with in our arrangements was some £200 million. To avoid any misunderstanding, I should perhaps explain that this represents the sterling held centrally by the monetary authorities of other European countries. It does not include sterling held by or with commercial banks. The figure is, therefore, considerably less than the figure of total sterling liabilities to O.E.E.C. countries which is given in Command Paper 8065. The amount paid off, up to the end of October, has been £25 million, consisting of £14½ million used by France for debt repayment, and £10½ million used to meet deficits with the Union. On the other side, the net amount of debts due to us is approximately £40 million. The arrangements for dealing with these debts have been made, and repayments are now beginning to come in.
I turn now to a matter which I am sure will be of great interest to the House—the actual results of the operations of the E.P.U. during the four months which have passed since it was introduced. The House will, of course, appreciate that when I give figures of the United Kingdom's position in E.P.U., these

figures reflect not only the United Kingdom's own balance with Europe, but the whole of the sterling area's balance. They also include the net balance on transfers of sterling between European and other "third countries."
The first operation was carried out in October, and this covered the three months July to September. The United Kingdom figures, which we published with the least possible delay, showed that over these three months we had accumulated a net surplus with the other member countries, excluding Switzerland, of £34.3 million. This figure, however, was reduced by £5.8 million, representing the amount of sterling balances put into the clearing by other members to cover their own deficits with the Union. The final figure, accordingly, was £28.5 million, which was charged, in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, against the United Kingdom's initial debit balance of 150 million units of account; that is to say, approximately £53 million. The unit of account, it will be remembered, is equivalent at the present time to one United States dollar.
A second operation has been carried out this week, covering the month of October. This shows a United Kingdom net surplus for the month, again excluding Switzerland, of just under £80 million, from which has to be deducted £4¾ million on account of the use of sterling resources by other members, leaving a final figure of approximately £75 million. Taken cumulatively with our surplus of £28½ million for the previous period, this means that we have discharged the whole of our initial debit balance, and now stand as creditors in the books of the Union for some £50 million.
A net surplus of nearly £80 million in a single month is certainly a striking result. We are not yet able to make any detailed analysis of this figure, but I am sure the House will agree that it is right that the House should be given a figure, if we have it. Nevertheless, I am sure hon. Members will realise that the mere fact of seasonal variations in the movement of goods can prevent the balance of payments in any one month from being a true indication of the trend over a longer period.
Then, too, the prices of sterling area commodities have been rising. In addition to those two factors, last month's


surplus no doubt reflects the change which has occurred in the international attitude towards sterling. The rigidity of the Exchange Control systems in operation in the Continental countries varies greatly, but, even under the strictest system of control, considerable freedom of action remains with the private trader as to when he buys and sells the foreign exchange which he requires for or which results from the goods in which he deals.
For this reason, the net demand by foreign traders for sterling in so short a period as a month may well be considerably in excess of the actual favourable balance of sterling area trade on both visible and invisible account with the countries concerned. Nevertheless, the demands for sterling by foreign traders lead directly to increased demands by foreign commercial banks on their central monetary authorities for more supplies of sterling. And it is on the changes in the sterling balances of those central monetary authorities that E.P.U. operations are calculated—a very sensitive form of barometer, as I am sure, the House will appreciate.
Each member country's surplus or deficit with E.P.U. is closely affected by the attitude which banks and traders everywhere may be currently adopting towards that country's currency in comparison with the currencies of other countries. Sterling, as a great international currency, is particularly susceptible to such changes in international sentiment and confidence. For these reasons, it would be quite unsafe to draw any conclusions for the future from the results of a single month. Indeed, so far as we have been able to make an estimate, it seems clear that our surplus is now running at a much lower rate than in October.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Gentleman said that we have paid off the whole of our initial deficit of 150 million units and that we are in credit to the tune of some 50 million units. I cannot make that answer square with the figures which he gave us. Can he tell us how this is arrived at?

Mr. Edwards: I did not talk about units. I was talking about pounds

sterling the whole time. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House to put it in that way. The cumulative position in terms of units of account is that the surplus for the four months was 320 million units. The use of sterling under Article 9 was 30 million and the use of the initial debit position was 150 million, leaving a figure in units of 140 million units of account. Perhaps I may say in passing, for the interest of the House, that we would have to get a figure of 212 million units before gold started flowing.
During the same period, as hon. Members are aware, Germany has run into serious deficit with the Union, and her position has caused considerable concern both to the German Government themselves and to the other members of the Union. The Managing Board were asked to report on the position, and their report was approved, in principle, last Tuesday by the Council of O.E.E.C., meeting at the official level. It is not necessary for me this afternoon to go into detail about this for an adequate and accurate account appeared in "The Times" and other papers yesterday. I would, however, say that there are grounds for believing that Germany's difficulties are only temporary and that satisfactory steps will be taken to remedy them; I hope that it will prove to be so. The final decision will be taken by the Council at the beginning of next month.
Now, may I turn more precisely to the Bill which is before us? This Bill gives the necessary statutory authority for the financial and accounting provisions required to enable us to carry out our obligations under the Agreement. Pending the passage of the Bill into law, we are relying on the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund, in accordance with the statement made on 11th July last by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In the first place, the United Kingdom transactions involved in these operations of E.P.U. are all to take place in or through the Exchange Equalisation Account, and the Bill authorises the use of that account accordingly. The maximum amount which could be outstanding as a charge on the Exchange Equalisation Account in respect of extension of credit to the Union is 60 per cent. of the United Kingdom's quota, or, approximate, £227 million.
Secondly, the Bill deals with the conditional aid allotted to us by the United States in connection with our initial debit balance in the Union. The procedure proposed for this purpose is that the sterling equivalent of the conditional aid we receive should be paid into the Intra-European Payments Account, and that this sterling should be used to recoup the Exchange Equalisation Account for the sums made available to the Union against our initial debit balance. This creates no additional charge on public funds, since the sterling is derived from the proceeds of conditional aid and any advances made out of the Civil Contingencies Fund will be repaid as soon as these proceeds are available. This accounting procedure has been discussed and agreed with the E.C.A. mission here in London.
Thirdly, the Bill deals in Clause 3 with the accounting procedure required in connection with the settlement of funding of certain debts from other members of E.P.U. I have already referred to the arrangements we have made with other countries for the settlement of "outstanding debts," that is, debts which existed at 1st July when E.P.U. was introduced, and I mentioned our agreement with Denmark for the funding of their debt to us. This funding will be carried out on an inter-governmental basis and in terms of sterling. The technical procedure for this funding is that we have to issue sterling which enables the Danes to re-purchase the kroner held by the Exchange Equalisation Account, and leaves them with a sterling obligation to us. This requires statutory authority for the issue from the Consolidated Fund and the formal agreement with the Danes cannot be made until this Bill is passed.
Similar arrangements may require to be made in connection with the withdrawal of members or the liquidation of the Union. The Agreement provides an inevitably complicated set of rules for dealing with what is to happen in these cases. Apart, however, from the rules for distributing the gold and dollar capital of the Union, the basic principle is that the credits or debits of the individual members with the Union are to be converted into bilateral obligations between the members themselves. In these circumstances, the Exchange Equalisation Account, having made sterling available against a credit in the books of

the Union, may find itself in the position that this credit is partly or wholly cancelled while in its place there is a series of bilateral and probably long-term debts from other members. It is to meet this type of case—as well as that which I mentioned earlier—that we require statutory authority for the Exchequer to put matters straight by issuing sterling to the Exchange Equalisation Account and taking over the debts itself.
Finally, the Bill is made to apply not only to the Agreement as originally signed on 19th September, but to that Agreement as it may subsequently be amended. No fixed term is set to the duration of the Union, though the financial commitments are concluded in the first instance only for two years. The Bill is wholly concerned with the machinery to be used to enable the United Kingdom to perform its functions with the E.P.U. If it becomes necessary to alter the machinery, then fresh legislation would be required, but as long as that question does not arise, it will, I am sure, be agreed that it is only common sense to allow the powers which we seek to acquire in this Bill to be used in respect of such amendments as may be agreed on from time to time either under the provisions of the present Agreement itself or by way of a new amending Agreement between the signatory governments.
These matters which arise from E.P.U. are, I know, somewhat formal. I hope, however, that I have brought up to date the various matters that were discussed when this subject was last debated. In conclusion, I think it would be wrong to regard the E.P.U. as a mere piece of financial machinery. It is more than that. It is an encouraging example of the way in which we and other members of O.E.E.C. are learning to work together. I believe that is a real contribution to the European solidarity which we all so much desire.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I am sure that we on this side of the House should like to extend our congratulations to the Economic Secretary on his debut. I think he felt a little sorry that his opening words should be on a subject so repulsive as the one we are discussing this afternoon. But, at least, there are compensations in that I did not notice any


exacerbated party interruptions. He can take that as some consolation, at least, for having such an arid first subject.
Although the Second Reading of this Bill would permit me to go very wide, I do not propose to go steeple-chasing all over the counties but, rather, to indulge in what I might call a little trotting exercise round the park, keeping within the railings. In the debate last July, we on this side of the House expressed general approval of any measures which increased or enhanced the convertibility of European currencies and which would help multilateral European trade. It is always as well to remind ourselves that no country stands to gain so much as our own from many-sided trade in Europe.
The Economic Secretary did not devote any of his remarks to the matter of the liberalisation of trade, except that he was referring indirectly to it in his concluding sentences. In July, I did express some apprehension that there was a good deal of make-believe over the liberalisation of trade. There were signs that where quantitative restrictions of imports had to be abolished under these arrangements, they were being replaced by higher tariffs against foreign imports which, of course, is going against the general spirit of the E.P.U., and seems not to endorse, quite so fully, the rather encouraging remarks with which the Economic Secretary favoured us at the end of his speech.
Is it not a fact that, at this moment, the subject of liberalisation, at least of her own trade, is not received with great enthusiasm by France, and that she is being rather obstructive on that matter? It seems that my fears were well founded, but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give us some words of reassurance. It would be useful for us if he would say—which I am sure he would be able to do—what great importance he attaches to this subject. This leads me to say something about the Gordon Gray Report and the International Monetary Fund's Report, because they are both germane to the subject we are now discussing.
Before I do that I should like to make some complaint—in the hope that I shall receive a sympathetic answer—that we need more figures, more consistent figures

and more readily digestible figures of the sterling area balance of payments. I hope I am not becoming idle with advancing years, but I do find the search for these figures baffling and irritating; and these feelings are not alleviated when the figures are so frequently changed. Thus, under the 1947 credits on the balance of payments, we find the term "Other" accounting for no less than £88 million. Quite apart from the rather elusive nature of the term "Other," the same figure for "Other" appears in other official documents, namely Cmd. Papers 7324 and 7929, as provisionally minus £20 million and plus £32 million. Now it is £88 million. I dare say that, at the beginning, it is difficult to get nearer than that, but £100 million seems to me, as a mere business man, a considerable error in calculation under the heading "Other." I hope we shall get nearer than that. If I made a similar mistake I should probably be staying in one of His Majesty's institutions.
These figures are closely relevant to the subject raised by the Gordon Gray Report and the I.M.F. Report. Generally, the trend of these Reports seems to be rather contradictory. First of all, I turn to the I.M.F. Report. It contains a plea or recommendation for greater purchases by sterling area countries of imports from the United States. It rests the argument upon the great improvement in the gold and dollar reserves which the sterling area built up during the recent past. But it does deal, first of all, with the sterling balances of countries treated individually, and, if one were in churlish mood, one might regard that as something of an attack on the sterling area concept as a whole. I fear that to urge greater dollar purchases now, upon the results of the last year, may be rather superficial, or rather premature.
In considering this Report, it is necessary to take into account, not only the size of the improvement of our gold and dollar reserves, but also the methods by which that has been achieved. Quite apart from the volume of exports, it has not taken place mainly by the rise in prices of raw material which the sterling area are supplying. That is not yet reflected in the accounts. One of the principal factors has been the abstinence from, or cutting down of, dollar imports since devaluation. In 1949, as the House will remember, the


sterling area countries were asked to make cuts of 25 per cent. in their dollar imports, and this percentage has been successfully cut a little bit more. It is not surprising that that should be so, because the rise in dollar prices, expressed in sterling as a result of devaluation, has been a strong deterrent to dollar purchases.
Out of an improvement, during the last 12 months, of about 1,200 million dollars in our balance of payments, no fewer than 325 million dollars have been due to savings on dollar purchases by the United Kingdom. On the other hand, looking at the raw materials part of it, I am impressed by fact that the figures of the dependent Territories, particularly those exporting rubber and tin have not shown the rise in the value of their exports that one might have expected. In the first six months of 1949, their exports to the United States amounted to about 87 million dollars, and, in the first six months of 1950, to only 154 million dollars, so there has not been a very striking rise there.
The really significant matter is that those other countries which are not, in the main, large dollar earners, have changed a deficit of 348 million dollars into a surplus of 28 million dollars. The purpose of my argument is to try to show that, until we can calculate the effect of a rise in prices of raw materials, we should be slow to rush into very much relaxation of dollar purchases. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me, and I assure him of support in this matter. These, after all, are not the only uncertainties. There is the effect of rearmament on our balance of payments, and the matter of Marshall Aid, or of aid designed to assist us in military preparation.
I read the International Monetary Fund report as perhaps a little stimulus to His Majesty's Government to go further than otherwise they would go, but I regarded the whole thing as asking us to make decisions rather in advance of the facts upon which those decisions should properly be based. If these words find some sympathy in the Chancellor's mind—speaking as I do, from the Opposition benches—he may be assured that we shall back him up in any action on those lines.
The other report went over a much wider field. It strikes a note with which

I am in harmony when it emphasises the need for sterling convertibility, and it goes so far as to suggest some practical means for facilitating that convertibility. On the other hand, it also emphasises very strongly the bad effects which would occur if the balance of payments in Western Europe were to deteriorate seriously as a result of rearmament. And that, again, is an attitude which is somewhat different from that of the International Monetary Fund report.
I do not propose to go into the machinery of the Bill which is, with the possible exception of the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund, fairly straightforward, but I should like to say a few words on the position of the clearing under the E.P.U. It is not at all unusual for clearing arrangements to suffer from teething troubles or, as the Germans prefer to call it, kinderkreiten, at the beginning and I do not suppose that the Government would deny that the results are different from what they expected when the fund was set up. They are certainly different from what I expected.
Just as in domestic affairs it has been known that economic planners have found it difficult to foresee the course of demand or supply or, indeed, the course of anything, so in international affairs the experts, among whom I fear I must ask the House to include me on this occasion, are often confounded by the course of events over clearing. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will no doubt have something to say on the need for more frequent settlements under the clearing and about that being able to mitigate rather violent movements before they have gone too far.
The figures given by the Economic Secretary amounted to the same as saying that the debit balances of Germany, the credit balances of France and the credit balance of our own country amount to rather more than we expected when the clearing started. I do not think we can be entirely free from anxiety in this initial period, because the arrangements have been founded on calculations that there would be very small movements of gold and that the debits and credits under E.P.U. would roughly cancel out. I heard the October figures for the first time this afternoon. I think it is the first time they have been made public; I always like to be sure that I have not


missed anything, but there are so many of these documents and Command Papers to follow. They show that the general trends are so emphatic that the prediction about the small movement of gold may very well be upset.
As I said, I do not wish to traverse the whole subject, and there is only one thing, in particular, which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he can give me a sympathetic answer. Perhaps he could imagine himself an Opposition politician trying for the moment to make some contribution to a debate like this. It is a position which he himself might have to occupy at some time during his political career. Looking at it from that point of view, would he try to get within a reasonably-sized document all the necessary figures which have to be brought together in order to study this subject? For the last two days I have been chasing a consolidated statement about sterling area trade with the O.E.E.C. countries and, after looking through Command Papers, through publications and at an enormous number of figures, I feel rather rebuffed.
I trust that the Chancellor will realise that the remarks I have offered are intended to be helpful and that they indicate quite clearly the directions in which the Opposition would wish to give support to His Majesty's Government but, like all efforts made by commercial or ex-commercial people, there is another side to this; we expect to be paid back, and the coin in which we want to be paid back this time is no more than that he should give his personal attention to trying to collect in a digestible form the figures which will enable us to make some contribution to the subject.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was singularly uncontroversial and I will reciprocate by echoing what he said, that we should regard the improvement in our gold and dollar reserves with caution. Certain fortuitous factors have been at work which may not recur. There is exaggeration and even misrepresentation on this subject from political platforms and in such newspapers as are more than usually addicted to polemics. I do not want to make that kind of thing any worse.
I have been struck by the—I do not want to say pedestrian, for that would not be a fair word—unimaginative speeches we have had from both Front Benches on this occasion, which I believe to be a memorable, historic occasion. It is well known that there are some hon. Members on this side of the House, and I am one of them, who hold extremely unorthodox views about finance. Any retreat by the pundits of finance from orthodoxy is welcomed by me as evidence that I and those who think with me are probably right. The Economic Secretary said the Bill was mechanical. That may be true. But there is nothing mechanical about E.P.U. There is something revolutionary about E.P.U., and the language in this Bill is calculated to obscure the significant and, as I would say, hopeful fact of the retreat of the orthodox financiers from their position.
In the Explanatory Memorandum and, indeed, in Clause 1, there are references to the Exchange Equalisation Account. I think a phrase like "Exchange Equalisation Account" is not a good one. I do not know what the average man outside, to whose influence all we in this House are sensitive, thinks about it, but I have some ideas about the Exchange Equalisation Account. The title is itself a misnomer. It conceals the financial genius of these islands, which is bringing about important and far-reaching changes. After all, the classic orthodox financial system is proving increasingly unsuitable to the needs of mankind, and it is true that the people of these islands, usually against violent reaction from the other side of the Atlantic, are devising new financial techniques. The phrase "Exchange Equalisation Account" would have been just as incomprehensible to a banker in the year of my birth, 1890, as television would have been incomprehensible to my grandmother in 1890.
Something has happened since 1890. There are people in these islands singularly gifted in these matters of finance, as in many other departments of human life, and such people are bringing about a financial revolution. In talking of the Exchange Equalisation Account, for example, anyone might think to hear it so called, that it is just some account held by the Bank of England; but it is no such thing. It is one of the largest and most influential banking institutions in the world. It is a deposit banking institution


holding deposits, I believe, from half the countries of the world. It is an independent banking institution controlled by the Treasury and demonstrating the efficacy of State banking as applied to these intractable problems of international trade.
In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum references are made to the funds in the Exchange Equalisation Account. I wondered whether the right hon. Member for Aldershot would raise the question whether these funds were adequate for the demands that may be made on them under the procedure of the Bill. It is worth while pointing out that these funds are substantial. They include £3,500 million in the Account at the extremely favourable interest rate of one-half per cent. per annum. They are our old friends the sterling balances, and the fact that they can be used in this way, as contemplated under the Bill and as my hon. Friend described, is a testimonial not merely to the credit of this country—by which I mean the belief of foreigners that we shall be able to deliver goods within a reasonable period—but also to the changing scene in all that pertains to new financial techniques.
I notice in paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, and in Clause 2, references to the Intra-European Payments Account. This Account is a thing from which I derive satisfaction, because it is our old friend the Keynes Plan in a new guise. The Keynes Plan was rejected at Bretton Woods in 1944 with something like contumely, and it is very gratifying to some of us on this side of the House to see the old Keynes Plan, rather condensed and rather modified, and with blocked sterling and blocked dollars functioning instead of bancor. The blocked sterling and blocked dollars are based on the credit of Britain and the United States, whereas bancor was to have been based on international credit.
I am happy to think that after five years the people across the Atlantic have grasped the ineluctable fact of the case—that scarce dollars require unorthodox technique—and that they are sponsoring this Intra-European Payments Scheme in order to revive international trade within the European system. Now that dollars are blocked, I hope we shall hear less about sterling being blocked than we

have been hearing from across the Atlantic.
My hon. Friend referred to conditional Marshall Aid, and I am glad he did so, because what goes in at one end goes out at the other. Over all, I believe we give away as much as we get in Marshall Aid. I deeply regret that anybody should cite aggregate Marshall Aid in an attempt to belittle the achievements of the British people since the war under the wise leadership of the Government. After all, there are deductions to be made, and this is an excellent example. The Americans are underwriting our possible losses in gold to this European Payments Union. It is good of them to do that, but let nobody add the amount of this kind of Marshall Aid to the total we are alleged to be receiving.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) is in his place and I think this a suitable occasion for me to recall to the House something said to me by his predecessor, the late Mr. Evan Durbin, a few weeks before the unfortunate accident that took him away from us. He said to me, "Well, Norman, I suppose you feel just as the Archbishop of Canterbury would feel if he awakened one morning to find that everybody in the country had been converted to the point of view of the Church of England." I said, "How so?" He replied, "The financial authorities, the people who matter, are gradually coming round to the point of view with which you have chosen to identify yourself for about 20 years. I think you have reason to be pleased."
It is a fact, as this Bill indeed shows, that a revolution is proceeding in financial technique like the revolution, which everybody understands, arising out of our increasing knowledge of physical science. The two go together. It is commonplace that changes in the industrial arts that result from science and invention are reflected in politics. That is no less true in the realm of finance, nothwithstanding the innate conservatism of bankers and, indeed, of Chancellors of the Exchequer—on this side of the House no less than on the other. The Treasury is being driven by the inescapable pressure of events to devise new financial techniques, of which this Bill is only one example.
Those of us in this House who offered strenuous opposition in 1945 to the


financial conditions attached to the American Loan have been justified in the event. The gravamen of our charge was that such an attempt as was being made to fasten on the world an international gold standard was bound to fail. That we have been proved right is only too obvious from the distressing series of financial and economic crises we have had since. It so happens that I am as much interested in good wine as in high finance, and I am certain we cannot put new economic wine into old financial bottles. We cannot in this age have a financial system based at one or more removes on gold payments. The difficulties of the last few years have borne that out.
It is at this stake that we get E.P.U. and we get this Bill. Whatever else is happening, this much is sure, that in E.P.U., and in the financial technique that underlies the Bill, we have a departure from the age-old superstition that trade transactions must necessarily be based on money of intrinsic value related to the precious metals. The contemporary variation of this singular superstitution takes this form, that international trade must be based on convertible currency. This Measure is a departure from the idea of convertible currency. This departure, so far as it goes—and it is a substantial departure—substitutes a kind of international credit for money based on gold, very much as the banking system in the late 19th century substituted the cheque-book for golden sovereigns in the overwhelming majority of transactions within this country.
I hope that the process of financial innovation will continue. I am not sure whether financial innovation is not one of the major inventions of our age. It so happens that in the 60 years I have been alive there have been five major inventions. I remember them all—the motor car, the cinema, broadcasting, the aeroplane, and atomic fission, the last having incalculable economic and social consequences. I am not sure whether financial innovation does not constitute a major invention likely to have substantial economic and therefore social effects.
I hope this process will continue until in every country the financial authorities regard full employment as a necessity, until such time as the last aboriginal anywhere has a television set. I hope it will con-

tinue, this process of financial innovation, this departure from superstition about gold. I hope it will continue until all over the world the financial authorities everywhere abandon this curious idea that convertible currencies based on precious metals are necessary.
I hope it will continue until that idea is abandoned, because I know that the inevitable accompaniments of that idea, if it is put into practice, are recurring trade depressions and perpetual poverty. That I know from experience. I welcome the Bill as a happy omen that we are nearing the time when these superstitions are going to be abandoned everywhere, even against the opposition of the clever boys across the Atlantic. It is because I hope that that will continue that I welcome the Bill.

5.5 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think we must all congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. N. Smith), on this the fourth and, so far, most exciting chapter of his long attack in this House on gold and its uses. I do not feel, quite honestly, that I need follow him any farther, especially as we shall, no doubt, get the fifth chapter in due course without any further argument on my part.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) did say, when he spoke just now, that it is very difficult for any Member of this House to comment on the European Payments Union at this moment. The Economic Secretary has produced figures today which were quite unknown to anybody in this House. Indeed, nobody could have got at them. It was only two days ago that the figures up to September were produced. That was the very latest information the ordinary Member had. I do think that this occasion provides an opportunity to ask the Treasury whether they will not be a little more forthcoming in providing information in time for debates. Even when one puts a Question to the Treasury they look upon it as being their duty, if possible, to produce the very minimum answer, without giving any information, if that can be avoided.
For instance I had a Question about one of the subjects which are bound to come up today—about what was the intention of the Government in regard to Germany. That was put down for answer


on Tuesday, the very day when the E.P.U. was meeting to consider this question. It had a scheme and a plan in front of it. It would have been perfectly simple in answering that Question for the Treasury to have given some information—not necessarily complete information, but some—of the way in which the Government proposed to tackle this matter. Not a bit of it. They used the opportunity merely to produce one of their well known answers consisting of flannel and platitudes which, in sum, meant nothing at all.
It was the same with two Questions, bearing on subjects to which my right hon. Friend referred. I put down on Tuesday two Questions about the amount of the recent growth of sterling balances—and the amount by which the increase in our gold reserves were due to sales of raw materials by the sterling area. Those are both very important points; both points, information about which, would have helped every hon. Member in this House in our discussion today. All I got by way of answer was that I should refer to the White Paper, in which the latest figures are dated 30th June. I could have found that for myself.
I do say this to the Treasury, that if they can come down to the House when it suits them, with figures that are right up-to-date to the end of the last month, it would be the least courtesy they could do to Members of this House to give in answer to questions, similar information. Then we cart have informed debates, instead of having a debate based on a Government statement, as happens all too often, without time to consider the facts and figures, contained in them. We ought to be given before the debate as many facts as possible.
Now I turn first to the question of the initial debit balance. I am sorry I got mixed up when I interrupted the hon. Gentleman between units and pounds. With all these figures that sort of thing happens only too easily when a list of new figures is suddenly introduced. However, as I understand it, we have paid off the whole of the initial debit and are now in credit. If I am right, that sum should be reimbursed to us by way of conditional aid.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): The debit balance.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The debit balance. I think I am right. I should like to ask the Chancellor this question. Has that sum been reimbursed to us yet, or is it part of our present allocation for the year of conditional aid, or is it something in addition to what, under the original allocation, we should be entitled to receive under the heading of conditional aid? I hope I have made myself clear. There are two possibilities. One is that it comes out of the sum we were originally allocated; or, it is something we receive in addition. I should like to know which it is, and how much we have received. Again, I should like to ask him this question. Suppose Marshall Aid in one form or another is cut down to this country. Can it be expected that so reduced a sum of conditional aid will include part of our structural grant to the European Payments Union? I do think we ought to have a very clear statement on that, and I hope that the Chancellor will give us one.
Now let me come to sterling balances. I hope I am right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman said that it is the intention that, in principle, under E.P.U. only sterling balances may be used owned by members within E.P.U. who held them prior to 1st July, 1950. That is the date at which the sums were reckoned which are available for payments by them as debtors. Then the hon. Gentleman, I must say, told me something I had never thought of, and that is what happens when a nation is in credit. Can it still use these balances? As I understood him, he was not prepared to give an answer on that. He said arrangements were going forward. Well, if in addition to giving our debtors unrequited exports by means of allowing them to draw down on sterling balances, we also give our creditors the same facilities, then we shall get the worst of any imagineable world. I do hope that the Chancellor will be able to reassure us on that.
Again, in the Command Paper 8020 I see the Chancellor has made arrangements for the refund by the U.S.A. of gold in case the drawing down of the balances should entail them. I want to know a little more about this. Is this particular guarantee included in what has been promised to us under Marshall Aid, or is it something entirely separate and additional?

Mr. Gaitskell: Separate.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Separate? I am glad to hear that. Well, that is the first question.
The second question is this. According in paragraph 2 of this Command Paper it would seem that the design is to bring the whole of the sterling area within the operation of this particular Agreement, and to safeguard the Government against the use of sterling balances held by a country outside the European Payments Union if such a balance be transferred to a member of the European Payments Union and used by that member in creating a debt which would incur for us a gold loss. If the right hon. Gentlman will look at what he said in the debate we had in July he will see that then he did admit that all transferable sterling balances could be made available by means of current transactions to the members of E.P.U. In fact all such balances could be liquidated through the clearing system we are now discussing. If he will look at paragraph 2 of the Command Paper he will see that it would appear that he has covered himself against this possibility, but I should like him, if he would, to say something really positive about that.
My right hon. Friend, in talking about sterling balances, very rightly raised this question of the International Monetary Fund Report. I was interested in seeing the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) last Tuesday. With respect, I would point out that that answer of the right hon. Gentleman was nothing but platitudes. It did not add anything to our knowledge. It left open, that what was put in the Report might have very grave effects for us. The right hon. Gentleman says that he retains control—or the Government do; but on the other hand, he can be outvoted by the I.M.F. and might well find himself—not necessarily forced—but under very considerable pressure, against which he might not be able to stand to implement the terms of that Report.
It must have—or may well have—very considerable effects upon the European Payments Union if it is true that the gold and dollar reserves of this country are to be viewed as the reserves of this country only, and that as far as the rest of the sterling area is concerned their sterling balances are to be considered as their reserves. Then those sterling balances are

going naturally to find an even greater impetus to translate themselves through E.P.U. or some other means into a more liquid and firm sort of reserve. The report of Mr. Gray has been quoted. There we are told that the terms of trade are going further to move against us. But we are equally told that sterling has got to be made convertible, and that we have got to liberalise trade to that end. I would point out to the Chancellor that with the small knowledge we have of the E.P.U. and with the apparently very small buffers we have with which to protect ourselves, we are running very grave risks.
I want now to ask the Chancellor one question about Germany. Here we have had the first really grave difficulty into which the E.P.U. has run. If the right hon. Gentleman will look back to the debate in July, he will see that my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) stressed—and this was possibly the most important point he made—that unless the E.P.U. had the right, as suggested by O.E.E.C., to recommend, and, indeed, if necessary, by a vote to enforce the proper use of its funds and its mechanism by all its members, this sort of trouble would be bound to happen. It was His Majesty's Government who refused the E.P.U. those powers. They, as in so many other matters dealing with European integration and the means of bringing together for effective action the forces, economic, military, and so on, in Europe, took the negative line that they were not going to join in anything which might infringe their own sweet will to go along the road of their own choice.
Here is the first proof of what happens when we do that. Within four months it has been necessary to grant a very large and special credit to Germany, and also to use the very powers which if brought earlier into existence under the original suggestion might well have saved this particular crisis. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if in all sincerity we are going to strive to build Europe together and use E.P.U. and other similar measures towards the full conversion of sterling and the full revival of the Continent to which we belong, it is very necessary to go into it wholeheartedly and not with reservations which within a few months as we have seen in this particular case, bring real trouble in their wake.
I feel that the first few months have provided no test upon which we can form


a final judgment. I hope that future action will be designed to make this type of agreement effective by giving it real strength in its initial stages and by giving the powers which make international agreements work and that it will not, as in this case, be so full of reservations that it is hard to see how it can achieve the purpose for which it is designed.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Albu: I think this has been a rather interesting debate. You, Sir, have allowed it to go very wide, and I am sure many of us rather welcome that, and particularly do we welcome some of the statements made both by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). I shall refer in a few moments to some of the things which the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest said about Germany because I think they lead to some very interesting conclusions which were not the conclusions he himself intended.
In particular, I think we were interested in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who opened the debate for the Opposition on the question of liberalisation of trade, and, to some extent, his defence of the sterling area which has, of course, been the basis of the Government's foreign trade policy for the last few years. I should like to support what he said because it is obvious that an attack on the sterling area is starting on the other side of the Atlantic at the present time. There was a report recently in the "New York Herald Tribune" which hon. Members may have seen, which showed that that was taking place.
This debate is taking place at a time when, I suppose, it is more difficult than normally to forecast the future of foreign trade and international payments because of the rearmament programme, and because of the great change in world prices and in terms of trade, due, particularly, to the commodity boom. Therefore, I support the right hon. Gentleman when he says that this is not the time for launching any change in policy as regards the sterling area, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has no intention of doing so.
I think it is a little unfair of the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest

to make the sort of remarks he made this afternoon, and has made in the past, to the Chancellor when he knows that he is engaged in very difficult negotiations. I do not think that his remarks on many occasions during the last two or three years have been at all helpful to this country. Of course, all of us would like to see further information provided on financial matters, particularly on matters of foreign trade and foreign balances, as soon as possible. But I would have thought that in the last few years there has been an increase in the provision of financial and economic information of a type we have never had before, and I should have thought that the Government and the Treasury were perfecting the method of presenting this information to the House and the country and that we could trust them to go on doing so. I do not object to hon. Members pressing for further information, but I do think that they might give credit where credit is due, and might realise what has already been done.
To my mind the most interesting point of view put forward so far in this Debate is that on the relaxation of dollar expenditure by the right hon. Member for Aldershot. I only hope that when he is in a more controversial mood than he was today he will remember what he said, and that he will remember what he said when he speaks on the hustings, as I have no doubt he sometimes does. It is rather extraordinary that he should make this clear statement, that this is no time for relaxing any restrictions on dollar expenditure, in view of the fact that the Opposition are demanding that we should raise the number of houses to be built by spending more dollars on timber, and that we should spend more dollars on newsprint in order to increase the size of newspapers.

Mr. Osborne: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is wiser to spend what few dollars we have on timber for houses than on timber for the amusement parks in connection with the Festival of Britain?

Mr. Albu: That remark is worthy of the hon. Gentleman. He knows perfectly well that the amount spent on the amusement parks is a triviality and is intended as an attraction by which we shall earn a larger amount of dollars.
I also hope that the Opposition will not support the attack made on the Government by the meat traders yesterday or the


day before when they blamed the Government for the shortage of poultry, and then went on to say that if the Government would allow more dollars with which to buy poultry there would be more turkeys for Christmas. Of course, in most of the newspapers this suggestion appeared in small print whereas their blaming of the Government was in the headlines.
I am glad that we have had from the Opposition Front Bench a clear statement that they do not believe this to be the time for relaxing our restrictions on dollar expenditure. I am also glad that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the great change in our fortunes in regard to international trade and the balance of payments that has taken place since we had the debate on devaluation. I am particularly pleased because I debated in the Third Programme of the B.B.C. with two Members of the party opposite, who are no longer with us, when they continually pressed me to say what further cuts in Government expenditure should be made in order that we might balance our trade. We now know that we have not only succeeded in balancing our trade, but have a substantial surplus. The right hon. Gentleman admitted this, and agreed that this was not due to the rise in the value of sterling area commodities during the last few weeks.
The point to which I particularly wish to refer in connection with this Bill was the position——

Mr. Bell: I think my right hon. Friend did not say that it had nothing to do with the rise in price of sterling area commodities. He indicated that it was only one factor, and said that it was not a predominant factor.

Mr. Albu: We shall see what he said when we come to read HANSARD. I heard him, fairly clearly, say that the rise in prices in the sterling area commodities which had taken place has not yet been brought into account in the figures presented. At any rate, he said that it was not a predominant factor.
I want to refer to the question of Germany. It is very interesting that the hon. Member should suggest we should exercise some powers over the German economy in order to correct the position

into which they have got. This situation is not surprising to those on this side who have always believed that the type of liberal free trade economy practised in Germany and in some other European countries is quite impossible in the circumstances in which they are. I only hope we shall make quite certain that the policies pursued by the German Government in their trade affairs will not result in a drain on the other European countries that are in credit with the account.
I know that the question of the German deficit was referred to experts who have reported that they think that the condition was produced by temporary factors, and that the situation will correct itself. On this point, I should like to read part of the speech made by Dr. Victor Agartz who is the Director of the German Trade Union Institute for Economic Research. Some of us know him from the days when he was the director of the economic administration in the British zone. He lost his position when the bi-zonal arrangement was made at Frankfurt and when the German Federal Government was subsequently elected. He is a Socialist, and Germany has a Christian Democratic Government pursuing a liberal free-trade policy. He is a highly intelligent man who is well informed on the question of the German economy and its balance of payments. In a speech he made at Dusseldorf on 26th September, 1950, he said this:
We have already mentioned that the German balance of payments shows a considerable deficit. Inasmuch as, on account of special circumstances created by the rearmament boom, we shall succeed in reducing and even in making up this deficit, it must not be forgotten that from the point of view of an active political economy, this improvement in the balance of payments is not due to a better organisation of the general structure of economy. Should the production of armaments diminish or cease, we can well find ourselves in a situation which will have heavy repercussions on the German consumption and, consequently, on the German production.
I want to quote something else he said which is relevant, if we are to understand what is taking place and if we are to safeguard ourselves in our economic relations with countries that have a free-trade liberal economic policy. He said:
I do not want to insist on the memorandum addressed to the O.E.E.C. by the Federal Government, although many statements contained in this memorandum are very


instructive. I shall say this however: if, today, the enforced system of quotas is abolished and if freedom of consumption has been restored in Western German—a situation which the Trade Unions would welcome as much as the Federal Government if economic conditions were favourable—this freedom of consumption is possible, at the present time, only because one half of the population does not take advantage of this freedom on account of too small incomes. This applies particularly to those who live on unemployment allocations or small pensions. The superabundance of goods seen in the shops and shop windows is relative and, above all, illusory, and exists only for the small percentage of the population which is able, because of higher incomes, to buy such goods.
He went on to say:
It is not a healthy economy, however, where one half of the population can purchase freely because the other half cannot do so.
We believe that there is a connection between this state of affairs and the situation into which Germany has got herself with the European Payments Union. I certainly hope that the British Government will ensure that in O.E.E.C. we shall exercise whatever powers we have to see that the German Government puts its economic house in order. The continuance of this type of liberal free-trade economy in countries like Germany should not mean that they are allowed to become a drain on Britain's economy. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has this point in mind, although it is important that this should be said in the House at this time.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: I am always glad to follow the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) because, apart from any other reason, it enables me to emphasise that, although we resemble each other physically, we are, in fact, different identities. I wish to refer back to the debate of 19th July, and to one or two of the points I put in that debate which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not answer, no doubt because he did not have the time to do so. The three points to which he did not reply have become very relevant since that debate took place.
I asked whether any precautions were being taken under the European Payments Union scheme against the possibility of one member drawing the whole of its credits in one go, which is what has happened. Secondly, I suggested that two-monthly intervals for the clearings or compensations were too long. I suggested that much could happen in two months in

connection with these monetary matters, and that one-monthly intervals should be adopted. I believe that this has now been done. If we had had an interval of only one month, we should have been able to see how things were going a good deal sooner.
My third point was this: The European Payments Union scheme is designed entirely for the smoothing out of fluctuations in current payments, and not to take care of capital movements. I expressed the doubt whether it would be possible to distinguish between current payments and capital transactions. This is the situation which, surely, has happened in the case of Germany. As I understand it, a good deal of the German deficit has arisen from heavy German forward orders for raw materials, which, in fact, form a stocking-up programme. They have used their credit facilities with the European Payments Union to increase their working capital, which I should have thought was not a current transaction.
Similarly, there has been a fairly clear movement away from the mark. A fairly substantial bear position has developed which is a matter, not of current payment, but of a capital nature. If this scheme is to work, we must have greater facilities for distinguishing between current payments and capital on speculative transactions.
The next point I want to come to is the credit of 120 million units which is to be extended to Germany. I have seen some reference to this in the Press this morning. I believe that one-third is to be paid by the Germans, out of their dollar resources. The question I wish to ask is from where this credit is to come. Is it to be provided by the members of the European Payments Union, or is it to come from the European co-operation administration? I want to refer to Cmd. 8064, particularly to Article 15 of the Agreement headed "Special Assistance," and to ask whether this article has been followed, because it provides:
If a Contracting Party is not in a position to make … payments of gold necessary for the settlement of its accounting deficit, the Organisation may, at the request of that Contracting Party, recommend to the Government of the United States to place at the disposal of that Contracting Party—subject, if necessary, to desirable conditions—amounts of United States dollars necessary to enable it to comply with its obligations under the present Agreement.


Has that article been brought into play in providing special assistance for Germany?
I should also like to say a word about the question of trade liberalisation, and how far progress has been made with the liberalisation of intra-European trade. I do not know whether the difficulties have yet been resolved, which I understand have arisen through the fact that the proportion of liberalisation applies wholly to trade on private account, whereas so much of our trade is still on public account. I think some controversy has arisen between ourselves and the other European Union countries as to the exact proportion and interpretation. I hope that these difficulties have been cleared up. Is it not a fact that Germany will have to put her liberalisation in reverse and reintroduce measures to restrict and discriminate? If that is so, is it not likely that that policy will be followed by other countries contiguous to Germany, particularly Belgium and Holland? It seems to me it is most important that liberalisation should continue.
I want to examine for a moment the implications of a substantial sterling area surplus with the European Payments Union. At the moment we are accumulating a remarkably large surplus, and this is likely to continue for some time at a substantial figure. What is the effect of this surplus? Surely it is, in fact, another form of unrequited exports. For the first 150 million units we have earned we shall get nothing at all, because it has been used to wipe off our deficit. I understand, from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 19th July, that the 150 million units would not be something additional to our share of Marshall Aid, but would be used as counterpart aid. Under the European Payments Union arrangement we will get exactly the same Marshall Aid dollars, and nothing additional for wiping out that deficit. We have now got to about 320 units in credit, but we have another 40 million units to go before we start getting gold payments.
I am not sure that we want to absorb part of the gold reserves of other European countries, because they have not a great deal to spare. My point is that a further extension of unrequited exports on a large scale may be a serious thing for the economy of our country. Surely the first

principle we must bear in mind is the importance of Empire trade. Important as is European trade, Empire trade is even more important. In so far as we have an increased surplus on the European Trade account, surely we are likely to have a smaller surplus, or a deficit, with the rest of the sterling area.
We can earn our surplus with the European Payments Union, either by the export of our own goods, or by the export of sterling area goods, such as wool. This may produce a credit for us with the European Payments Union but it will be matched by an increase in the balances held in London by Australia and New Zealand. If our credit is made up from our own exports, then we are exporting merely in exchange for credits with the European Payments Union goods which could be sent to other areas, such as the dollar area, or used to increase our investment in the sterling area, or goods which could be consumed in this country and thereby help to damp down the inflationary pressure. Surely any sending of goods abroad against credit and not against immediate payment is bound to be inflationary in its effect? Secondly, in so far as credit has been earned not by our own exports but by the exports of Dominions passing through our monetary system to Europe, we have been piling up increasing quick sterling liabilities to Dominion countries, and the scale of these liabilities in London at the moment is one of the most serious economic problems which we have to face, and it may become more serious.
I appreciate that there are strong political reasons why we should strive to maintain a high level of exports to Europe. One could not argue very easily in favour of cutting them down, but, on the other side of the picture, surely it is much to our advantage to increase our imports from Europe, particularly at a time when the growing rearmament drive is creating bottlenecks in our own industries and shortages of consumer goods? The heavy engineering industries of Germany and Italy have spare capacity, and so I believe has the Belgian steel industry nowadays. The industries of those countries could provide articles, goods and commodities useful in our rearmament drive and we could take those instead of merely earning for ourselves credits with the E.P.U.
The E.P.U. is obviously in its early stages at the moment and it is suffering very considerable stresses and strains. I wonder sometimes whether the fact that E.P.U. cannot apparently work successfully without the most stringent exchange controls in a time of fixed exchange parities is not another argument for saying that we must look again at the present doctrine of maintaining a system of fixed parities. The E.P.U., or any other payment scheme, has to carry heavy strains. There have been, and are, wide variations in commodity prices, in the course of trade and in the course of payments and there have been disparities between the changes in trade movements and the changes in payments. These fluctuations are surely enhanced by the existence of fixed parities which encourage speculative movements in currencies. It is another example of the way in which the maintenance of fixed parities and the absence of a fluctuating exchange market with exchange equalisation funds as a counterbalancing factor encourages speculation and makes it more difficult to have a regular flow of trade and payments in the world.
I have tried to emphasise as far as I can that this scheme is in its early stages. It has started by producing features which no one could have foreseen when it was first introduced. We must try to make a success of it. Now is the time for us to review the implications of the E.P.U. scheme which have become apparent in the last few months and which must change the whole aspect of the scheme from the point of view of this country's long-term economic interests.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this very complex subject, but it behoves all of us to try to get at least a glimmering of the main principles involved in the legislation. The E.P.U. sets out, as the White Paper so clearly says, to facilitate the largest possible measure of liberalisation of trade among member countries. As the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said in the useful contribution which he has just made, that would give us the advantage of products which the continental countries can provide for us at the time of over-full employment when our resources are stretched to the limits.
Secondly, the aim is to help the member countries in their efforts to become independent of extraordinary outside assistance and to encourage all members to achieve and maintain a high and stable level of trade and employment. None of us will grumble with that aim. We are also told that the aim is to assist nations in the transitional period from the post-war world to the years after 1952 and to provide a cushion to play the part which European gold and foreign exchanges which are earned cannot be expected to play.
There are other aims, but these are very important principles in themselves. All of us would agree that this idea of a clearing union operated from Basle, which seeks to give greater flexibility in currencies and trade and to provide extra credits for nations which may be temporarily in difficulties, is all to the good. However, I want to ask one or two questions because, since the time that this Measure was first talked about by my right hon. Friend's predecessor in regard to the intra-payments legislation and in subsequent discussions, the position has changed somewhat.
Reference has already been made to the changed position in regard to our balance of payments. The Bill mentions the aid which we are receiving from the United States, and in the "Economist" the other day certain matters were put to us which have been brought out in the discussion. One is that since 1st July Great Britain has received 175 million dollars of its provisional total allocation of 424 million dollars of Marshall Aid for 1950–51. Great Britain's allocation was to include 150 million of conditional aid, which was to off-set its initial contribution of the same amount to the European Payments Union.
The question is whether Great Britain has received the 150 million dollars of conditional aid, or is it to be subtracted from the aid which we have already received? We heard from the Home Secretary, in his new role as an economic adviser, that the time had arrived when this country could stand on its own feet and that, possibly, we could carry on without Marshall Aid, although under pressure he made it clear that that was the position before we had our rearmament programme to consider.
My second point is this. In July we were asked by the United States to state what we thought we could contribute during the next three years to the rearmament programme, and almost by return of post we said we thought that, with some sort of help, we could commit ourselves to £3,600 million. By this time we ought to know exactly what aid we are to receive, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us any news which he has of that position.
It is all very well to say that the exchange position has improved, though we are all glad to hear that. It has been made clear by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) that that is not all due to the sale of primary products from Malaya and so on. He thought that it was a little early to see results from that, but no doubt we can expect some tangible results in the course of time. However, that is a very impermanent basis on which to build and I do not think that this country can be expected to say that it has completely solved its balance of payments position, if that is going to be the explanation.
Also, we cannot pay the amount of £3,600 million for rearmament unless we have substantial aid. If we did so, it would devalue the pound sterling, the economic position of this country would become completely lop-sided and instead of maintaining the apparently good standard which we have now attained there would be a recession. I should have thought that it is too early to talk about cancelling out Marshall Aid.
I also want to ask my right hon. Friend something about the relationship of the International Monetary Fund to this new machinery. He answered a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) and it seemed to us—it was described as a secret report from the International Monetary Fund—that certain directions were being given to this country to increase its dollar imports. To say the least of it, I agree with the right hon. Member for Aldershot who thought that this was premature, although I expect that a week tomorrow some of his hon. Friends will be saying that more newsprint must be imported into this country from the dollar areas. I hope

that they will bear his words in mind when that is said.
What is the relationship between the International Monetary Fund and E.P.U.? Are we under directions from it? We could certainly do with many nice things in this country. We have restricted our imports to about 84 per cent. of our pre-war consumption, but it would not be an act of wisdom if at this first sign of success we were to ease up and then have to tighten up again and disappoint our people. So far our reserves are very slender, and I hope that, owing to the changed position, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to tell us something about the Government's views in this matter.
There seems to be a conflict in the United States as to what the position should be about giving aid to this country and to other countries of Western Europe. The other day we saw the report of Mr. Gordon Gray, which seemed to argue for a continuation of aid after 1952. He thought it was a first-class investment. Yet, if our information is correct, one of the first jobs that a distinguished American visitor to this country had to do was to tell us that we were doing so well and were so well off that Marshall Aid should cease immediately. However, Mr. Foster said, in passing, that if we did get into a jam again there would be some standby assistance. These considerations are very important to us.
I welcome the Measure in so far as it will make for the liberalisation of trade and remove some of the difficulties not only between us and dollar countries but also between the currencies of the 18 countries in which there have been exchange difficulties. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot said, it is rather like putting up a façade to talk about the liberalisation of trade. He gave a hint that France might resort to other methods—if she has not already done so—to keep us out. This refers to quantitative imports.
There are other considerations in regard to the liberalisation of trade. Conditions of production need to be borne in mind. Are we satisfied that the conditions under which goods to be freely exchanged are produced are fair, for instance, in terms of wages. Probably this falls outside the terms of the scheme but there ought to be a parallel scheme to give protection in such matters.
In seeking to liberalise trade, are we doing it on a planned basis? Will some countries bring into production some things which in a year or two nobody will want, or is there some kind of correlation between the countries in Western Europe and the 18 subscribing countries under this scheme to see that the plans are developed, in the best sense, to maintain trade and full employment, not only in the next few years, but in the next generation? I know that some of these considerations will have occurred to my right hon. Friend, who had a conference on this very matter some time ago with the kindred powers in Western Europe. They are, however, matters which occur to us as trade unionists and to people who do not wish to run headlong into competition with Germany or other countries where the conditions of production are not what they should be.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: It is only with very great diffidence that I take part in this highly complicated discussion. Before I come to the point which I wish to make, I should like to follow up what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) has just said. If I understood him aright, he said that we cannot spend £3,600 million on rearmament with outside aid.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Without outside aid.

Mr. Osborne: Without outside aid. He also said that we have not as yet solved the balance of payments and, therefore. Marshall Aid should not end at once.

Mr. Davies: What I said was that it was a little premature to say that we have solved the balance of payments problem. I thought that the factors which had given us our improved position were not sufficiently stable to make us independent of such aid as we have been having.

Mr. Osborne: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. He has made the point clearly for me. He is saying that we are able neither to earn our own living nor to pay for our own defence. That is exactly the point that I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make from this highly technical Debate, because I suppose that if the Press take any notice of the Debate, they would take

notice of two facts which were given in the opening speech.
The first was that in the four months since the fund has been operating, we have improved our position to such an extent that whereas previously we had a debit, we now have a substantial credit. The second is that for the month of October our position had improved by, I think, £78 million sterling. That is the figure which is likely to impress such people as will see anything of this in the newspapers tomorrow, but it will give a false impression.
The one problem facing the country—and I am sure that the Chancellor is well aware of this—is the question of productivity and lower costs. Our problem is to make the workers, and especially industrial workers, realise that we must have substantially increased production at considerably lower costs. My experience in talking to workers, however, is that if I say that output has to be increased and costs reduced, I am faced with figures of the kind which have been given to us. I am told, "But the Chancellor or his deputy said only yesterday that our balance had improved this month. We are doing fine. We are in no difficulty at all. The wonderful Socialist Government have so organised things that we are in an economic paradise." People do not say that we are facing a dire economic crisis, which I believe to be the position—a view to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, subscribed when he said that we could pay neither for our own living nor for our own defence.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I am sure that the hon. Member, while he is quite entitled to score a debating point, would not wish to misrepresent me completely. What I said was that we had not reached a position of self-sufficiency completely and absolutely, certainly not to be able to expend £3,600 million during the next three years on rearmament. That is vastly different from what the hon. Member is saying. I said that it was premature to think that we could wind up even Marshall Aid.

Mr. Osborne: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I would not wish to misrepresent him, but in putting even the most modest interpretation upon what he says, it still boils down to the fact that without outside help we could not maintain our present standard of life and could not


meet our liabilities to defend ourselves. That is the point which I want the Chancellor to put over.
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that in paragraph 30 of Command Paper 7572, which was issued in connection with O.E.E.C., his predecessor, with characteristic honesty and forthrightness, said that the great difficulty facing the Government was to make people realise that there was a great and real economic crisis. I do not believe that that realisation has got home even now. The statement that there was a £78 million improvement last month will give a false impression unless the Chancellor gives the sternest warning against misinterpretation.
I come now to my second point. One of my hon. Friends made a protest about our being refused up-to-date figures on economic matters. I support him in saying that when it suits the Government to produce up-to-date figures, they can be given. When I asked, in Question No. 65 today, what the sterling area imports from North America had been in the last six months and how they compared with the improvement in our sterling balances in the same period, I was referred by the Economic Secretary to a White Paper that is completely out of date. He was able to ride away without giving the facts that he knew I wanted and which. I feel, the country ought to have.
The danger is that the figures which the Government issue from time to time give too rosy a picture of our true economic situation. We shall never get either managements or labour to put into their jobs that extra effort to give us the additional production we require until they realise the gravity of our situation.
I ask the Chancellor if he will now give me the figures for which I ask. Is it not true that our purchases from America during the last six months are just about equal to the improvement in our dollar reserves? If so, does it not mean that our stocks of raw materials and foodstuffs have diminished by that amount? Further, is it not true that in that six months the prices of both raw materials and foodstuffs have increased considerably, so that if we were to try to replace the physical volume of the stocks we had six months ago it would cost us a great deal more? Therefore, to say to

the workers that our position has improved enormously, that our gold and dollar reserves are up by x millions, is to give a false and "phoney" picture. [An HON. MEMBER: "False?"] Yes; and we shall never get from the organised workers that great effort which I believe is still necessary until the truth is put in front of them.

Mr. Follick: Would the hon. Member like to introduce a 10-hour working day? If so, he should say so clearly.

Mr. Osborne: I am not saying how the Government should achieve results. If they would get out and let a more competent set of men take their place, we would show them how to get results.
But that is not the point I am making. I am reiterating what was said by the previous Chancellor in paragraph 30 of Command Paper 7572, which I recommend to hon. Members opposite, and I emphasise that until the workers realise the gravity of our situation we shall never get anywhere. I ask the Chancellor, when he winds up the Debate, to show the red light as it were, against these favourable figures, so that a false impression shall not be left with the people of the country.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I rise to end this short but highly technical Debate. There have been very few fireworks, and we must look to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make his own Fifth of November. I remember the right hon. Gentleman congratulating me upon my maiden speech. He did so with equal grace, but probably with less sincerity than most people who perform that difficult art. In those days we knew the right hon. Gentleman as a backroom boy of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. He has now become one of the principal ornaments of the front parlour, and we must wish him well in his new task.
Our attitude to the European Payments Union was very well put in the last debate on this subject by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. N. Smith), when he said that the whole thing could have been much worse. The hon. Member always speaks very good English if nothing else, and I thought that that was admirably put. In his speech today, however, the hon. Member saw a great vision


of the whole world going Douglas Credit, with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer bowing before that idol. I am not at all certain that the hon. Member is right. I am not sure that with the inevitable march of progress, in 30 years' time we shall not get back to a foreign exchange situation which our grandfathers considered to be normal, and I am not at all certain that the prayer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really the prayer which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, thinks it is. I am not at all sure that his prayer is not the prayer of St. Augustine, when not yet in a state of grace:
Oh God, give me chastity and continency, but do not give it yet.
It seems to me that all this business is a gradual sloughing off of the war-time restrictions and a gradual return to something which was very simple and normal in the old days.
Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman is a teacher, and I think that the Economic Secretary also has been at one time a lecturer in economics. Exactly how anyone lectures on foreign exchange now I do not know, because unless the textbooks are amended by hand they can never be up-to-date for more than six months at a time. That, however, is beside the point.
So far, the working of the Agreement has been not at all bad, although of course not exactly in accordance with the plans. The Economic Secretary, very wisely, I think, pointed out that he could not exactly foresee the future. That is the trouble with planning. All planners know who won last year's Derby. The trouble arises when they come to next year's Derby. That is where the hon. Gentleman was not very helpful. The only absolute certainty that I can see in the future whilst the Socialist Government are in power is that prices will go on rising. I should not at present like to predict anything else.
Both the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) rather twisted what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said. My right hon. Friend said that given the uncertainties of the future, we ought not to throw the reins on to the horse's neck and gallop regardless. He did not say that things were

not slightly better and that certain alleviations were not possible. It is this tendency on the benches opposite to say that something is pitch black or is pure white which is dangerous, because very few things are in fact either pitch black or pure white; and to say that my right hon. Friend wanted to "gallop regardless" is a misrepresentation of his speech.
There is one point about the revival of the strength of Europe which we should never forget, particularly when talking about this Agreement. That is, the paramount effect on the economy of Europe and upon this scheme of the actions of the Americans and what happened to the American economy. Lord Keynes, whom the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, quoted, in the last article which he wrote before he died, said something which is very relevant to the situation of this country and to our future. He wrote:
The United States is becoming a high, living and high cost country beyond any previous experience. Unless their internal as well as their external economic life is to become paralysed by the Midas touch they will discover ways of life which compared with the ways of life of the less fortunate nations of the world must tend towards and not away from external equilibrium.
That I think is happening in ways which perhaps may not have been foreseen at the time. It is happening not only by their giving aid but by their war preparations and the shouldering of so much of the general burdens of the defence of the world. The dollar problem is being solved by America becoming a high cost and high living country and not allowing themselves to be paralysed by the Midas touch.
There has been a great deal of talk in this Debate about sterling balances. There are two types of sterling balances; those arising out of the war which I profoundly wish had been settled at the end of the war, which I believe if we had been tough enough would have been settled, and sterling balances of which we are talking here, which are simply trade debts incurred in the immediate past. They should not be put in the same class as debts incurred in the defence of civilisation during the war. The question has been raised several times whether the change in American policy will affect the guarantee they gave on the loss of gold in payment on sterling balances. I hope that when


he replies the Chancellor will say a word about that.
As far as sterling balances go we have been protected in some way I think by their immense size. Doctor Johnson had great experience of this. Small debts are a nuisance, but he said,
great debts are like cannon; of loud noise, but little danger.
The more money one owes, the more anxious bankers are to lend one money. There is a point raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) about which I wish to say a word. He said that Germany were the bad boys of this agreement and that it was going to get worse. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury was a little more charitable but the hon. Member for Edmonton attributed German difficulties entirely to the liberalising of German trade. I am bound to say that coming from someone like him that is fairly tough because, after all, in the first three or four years after the war Germany was a planner's dream. Everything was planned in Germany, practically everyone was starving, trade was about a third of what it is now, no building was going on and there was the greatest possible degree of misery.
Anyone who has been in Germany during that period and lately will find that one of the most staggering changes in economic history has taken place between the two periods. They have certainly run into a rough passage now, but to say that because someone runs up a debt they are evil people and it is all because of liberal trade comes rather badly from a party which in 1947 ran through £1,500 million of gold in the middle of what we are told was a highly planned economy.

Mr. Albu: The hon. Member is aware that Germany has been receiving a great deal of Marshall Aid and has received a great deal of aid from this country and the United States. What I was pointing out is that the appearance of economic prosperity is an appearance and in fact the majority of people, especially pensioners, are not so prosperous.

Mr. Birch: Does the hon. Member say that the appearance of prosperity is owing to Marshall Aid? It seems to me that if we say that is the reason in Germany we will have to say that it is the reason here. It is difficult to see a great deal

of difference between the two. When the hon. Member says that pensioners are suffering so horribly in Germany I would ask what is happening to them here? I think that to attribute this to liberalisation of trade is a piece of nonsense.
If I may now get down to a point of detail on the Bill, I want to call attention to subsection (3) of Clause 2, under which it is open to the Government to charge large temporary debts which they may incur under this scheme which are subsequently recouped from America to the Civil Contingencies Fund. As I see it, the real evil is that it is given as an excuse for maintaining the size of the Fund at a very high level, namely £125 million. This Fund was only designed to deal with trifles, very small amounts with which it was not convenient to deal by Supplementary Estimates on the nod, so to speak. It was not intended to put in the hand of the Executive a very large sum of money which they could use entirely at their own discretion, thereby giving them power to conceal from the people what really was going on.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that he himself is as pure as a London snowflake and will never do anything wrong, but we have to remember that this Civil Contingencies Fund for which he is now supplying excuses was used to conceal from the country underestimating on the Health Service of £98 million until after the Election. It was concealed by raising £55 million from this Fund thereby avoiding having to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate until after the Election. That was wrong and if the groundnuts scheme had been set up in a different way it would have been possible to hide what was happening there in exactly the same way.
I think it is important to distinguish between the tasks of a poacher and a gamekeeper and in his present job the Chancellor is a gamekeeper not a poacher. Unless he realises that we will get the usual once-every-two-year crisis. We had one in 1947, one in 1949. There is not one due this year. But next year, unless he pulls himself together and if he goes on doing a bit of poaching on the sly as well as being a gamekeeper, it will happen again. I hope he will not go on with this but that he will give a better justification for the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund than he has so far given. With


that one stricture on a technical part of the Bill, I say we welcome the general scheme and, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, said, on the whole it is working better than many thought it would work.

6.23 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): This has been an interesting Debate and I am sure, despite the technicalities, everyone has enjoyed it. I personally thought that a lot of the points made were very valuable. Some of them, of course, were points of detail and some of greater consequence. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) referred to the question of liberalisation and I must take the blame for the fact that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury did not cover that in his remarks. I thought it might be going rather wide and that we would get perhaps into too much detail, but, in view of the questions of the right hon. Gentleman, I will say a few words on the subject.
Since the debate in July we have moved some considerable distance in this sphere. For example, it has been decided that discrimination in what is called the liberalised sector, where we have no quantitative restrictions, is to be abolished on 1st January next and in the non-liberalised sector by 1st February. The progress towards 60 per cent. liberalisation was achieved within a fortnight of the signing of the Agreement and at the last meeting of the Council of O.E.E.C. we agreed to go to 75 per cent. by 1st February, subject to certain reservations made by certain countries.
So, however difficult this question of tariffs may be, I do not think one can deny that one essential object of the European Payments Union has already been achieved to some extent. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that we cannot consider the question of quantitative restrictions as a possibility of freeing trade without also bringing in the question of tariffs and it is quite true that some European countries, which happen to be low tariff countries, have had the feeling that by lifting quantitative restrictions they are left in a less advantageous position vis-a-vis other countries with higher taiffs. But, as the House will realise, the question of tariffs affects a much wider area than the European Payments Union area: it is under discussion

at Torquay at the moment and it is no use trying to deal with it in the European framework alone. That is the line we have always adopted on O.E.E.C. and, on the whole, I think it has been accepted.
Some reference was made by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to the question of State trading. I would like to make this clear. If we exclude State trading our percentage of liberalisation is now 85 per cent. and even if we treated State trading as being entirely in the restricted area, our percentage would still be 75 per cent. That is, we should already have achieved what the organisation said we ought all to reach by 1st February. I must add, of course, that it would be quite wrong to treat State trading in every case—to put it mildly—as involving the same thing as quantitative restrictions. When trying to buy raw materials in Europe, for instance, we are anxious to get as much as we can and there is no question of keeping products out. Perhaps only in the sphere of agriculture and agricultural products can one make such a criticism. No one can pretend that this is an easy question, but we have made very substantial progress.
The right hon. Gentleman asked if I would repay some of his remarks in the coin of information. The quantity of statistics now published is vastly greater than has been the case in the past. Sometimes, I must remind hon. Members, when they ask Questions it is not very easy to answer because the figures are not readily available to us. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) this afternoon asked something which it would have been extremely difficult to answer except by referring to other statistical tables. It is, after all, a very well-known and accepted convention in this House that the Government are not expected to repeat to hon. Members what they can find for themselves in other publications.

Mr. Osborne: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he will agree that this publication was three months out-of-date. I was asking for up-to-date figures.

Mr. Gaitskell: I was not thinking of the sterling balances for the moment. I will say a word about them later, but I was thinking of the other Questions the hon. Member asked.
We will do our best to satisfy the House generally in this matter. I agree that it is confusing when statistical changes are made, but I think it would probably be agreed that the latest White Paper on the balance of payments, although it involves changes, compared with previous White Papers, is a very distinct improvement in that it draws the line distinctly between capital and current transactions. After all, it is better to get on to a new basis, if it is a better one, than to stay on the old one.
The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) asked me a number of questions which I shall try to answer. If I may say so, he was rather confused about the position, under the E.P.U., of sterling balances. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary explained that, quite apart from the fact that any country in deficit may draw on its sterling balances, we are in the process of making agreements, in accordance with the provisions, with those who were our creditors about the repayment of the balances. There was nothing new about that. It is simply the funding of a debt which, as the hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) pointed out, has accumulated in the last few years. The fact that the creditors may be surplus countries is neither here nor there. It would be a serious matter for us only if we were in deficit, and if that were to be the case, of course we are covered under the gold guarantee, so I do not think the hon. and gallant Member need have any anxieties on that point.
Similarly, I think he must have misunderstood something, whether in the correspondence between myself and Ambassador Katz or elsewhere, about the position of the sterling area. The only balances that can be drawn down in this connection and attract the gold guarantee are the balances of the European countries. There is no question of any other sterling balances being involved.
The hon. Member for Flint, West, asked me whether the gold guarantee would still apply whatever happened to Marshall Aid. If he will read the exchange of letters, he will see that it is quite clearly intended that the guarantee shall continue until 1952, and that there is no question of relating it to the amount of Marshall Aid we may be receiving.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I take it that if sterling balances other than those held by members of E.P.U. are used for E.P.U. there is no available guarantee to cover them.

Mr. Gaitskell: No. that would not come into it at all. I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member means by sterling balances being used when they do not belong to E.P.U. countries. Perhaps he will think it over, because it does not make much sense in this connection.
There was another point made by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest about the position of Germany, with which I will now deal. He seemed to think that had we adopted the system which the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) suggested in our last debate—that is to say, a management board with a majority vote and complete powers so that every country which belonged to the union would put itself under this board and be pledged to carry out its decisions—we should not have got into the present position as far Germany is concerned. I cannot follow that at all. The German Government have not been making difficulties with the rest of the members of the Union. They have not objected to anything in particular.
As various hon. Members have said, what has happened is that they have run through their quota rapidly. I will come to the reasons in a moment. There has been a discussion, first by the management board who, in fact, invited two experts to report to them on it. There have been discussions with the German Government. Certain recommendations have been made, and they will finally come before the Ministerial Council on 1st December. I cannot see that it would have made the slightest difference in this case if we had had the kind of set-up which I am surprised to see he still seems to support, because it was completely at variance with his criticisms of the International Monetary Fund—a body which, to some extent, works on those lines, where there is a majority vote so far as the activities of the Fund are concerned, and we have to accept it.
In the case of Germany, it is quite true, as the hon. Member for Barnet said, that we did not provide any special precautions to prevent one country drawing out


its full credit. All that was laid down in the original Agreement was that the management board would keep under review the position of any country which got into serious deficit. It was never our intention that clearing should take place only every two months indefinitely. It was simply felt that to start with anything else would have been impracticable. That was all. I think we may expect that they will probably continue on a monthly basis. They will not do so immediately but they will certainly do so six months after the beginning of the Agreement.
On the question of current and capital transactions, one could argue as to whether the forward purchases of other currencies, which, no doubt, played some part in the German deficit, were capital transactions. They were not capital movements in the ordinary sense of the flight of capital, but were forward covering by traders, who probably anticipated changes in currency rates. It is not a thing which E.P.U. could have done anything about. It becomes a question of what type of exchange control exists in the various member country and, as the hon. Member will appreciate, we have only limited powers over the German foreign exchange control.
Then the hon. Member asked whether Article 15 had been used. I understand that it is a recommendation to the Council that the European Co-operation Administration should be approached with a view to assisting with some grant under that Article. The House will not expect me to say more on this because, although the Council at the official level has discussed the matter, it will shortly be considered at the Ministerial level.
Then the hon. Member for Barnet, in a particularly interesting passage of his speech, discussed the question of the relationship of trade with the sterling area and with Europe. At one point I thought he was suggesting that somehow or other we should not have allowed this surplus to accumulate within Europe. I do not think he meant that in the end, because he also said that the only way in which we could have prevented that from arising—in so far as it was particularly due to increases in the prices of sterling area materials—would have been to refuse to agree to any union which did not involve automatic gold payments.
I explained in our last debate that we felt it would have been most undesirable in present circumstances to attempt to suck up gold from Europe and put Europe back prematurely on a gold standard. But if we do not have that, we must expect these swings in credit to a certain extent, although perhaps they have been on a rather larger scale in this instance. However, I agree with the hon. Member that if the difficulties of the German position appear to be rather more long-term, undoubtedly there is a strong case for increasing the scale of imports from Germany, both to the rest of the sterling area and here.

Mr. Maudling: Surely it is not only a question of the German debit, but also of our credit with Europe as a whole.

Mr. Gaitskell: I quite agree. It was always the intention, when we set up the Union, that as far as possible extreme creditors would correct their position and so would extreme debtors. We shall endeavour to do that, but, of course, we have already carried our liberalisation policy to a high level and it is not easy for us to do more. However, we shall certainly look at it and do what we can.
Then I was asked what was the position of Marshall Aid. I would ask the House to excuse me from saying anything on this subject at the moment. I am engaged in talks with our American friends and, as soon as I have anything to say, I will come here and say it. I think, however, that it would be wiser for me not to refer to the subject in the circumstances.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the so called I.M.F. Report, which suggested that there should now be relaxations on dollar imports by certain sterling area countries. I answered a question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) on Tuesday on this, and I cannot accept the criticism of the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest that it was a particularly fluffy answer. No doubt when Governments make statements they have to use very diplomatic language. Anyway, he would see fairly plainly that what we were saying, in effect, was that the I.M.F. might hold these views, but that so far as we were concerned it was a matter for our Government to decide what we would do about dollar imports.
We did that in collaboration with other Commonwealth countries in the sterling area and, in fact, discussed the whole question at the July Conference with the sterling area Finance Ministers. Incidentally, I might tell the House that this is not a report of the I.M.F. at all; it is, I think, simply material which the representative of the I.M.F. took with him to the Torquay Conference. The matter is being discussed there and I have every reason to hope there will be a satisfactory outcome from it.
I certainly welcome the support of the right hon. Gentleman for the policy of the Government in this matter. He is perfectly right. We ought not to overlook the fact that some of the influences which have given rise to the increase in our gold reserves are undoubtedly of a temporary character. It is quite clear, as has been said on many occasions, that the restrictions imposed in 1949, before devaluation, have been most powerful factors in helping us to restore the situation. It is equally clear that the increase in prices, though certainly benefiting some countries in the sterling area, will also involve higher dollar payments. Also, I think that, to some extent at least, the increase in the reserves is associated with those anticipatory or forward purchases of sterling to which I referred, They are in that sense capital and non-recurring items.
I would agree with the hon. Member for Louth that the very large surplus which is shown in this last month is unquestionably due to special factors and cannot be regarded as a normal trading surplus. There is every reason to believe, as my hon. Friend said, that in this month and probably in the succeeding months, though I think we may have a surplus of some kind, it will not be on that kind of scale.
There is, as the right hon. Member for Aldershot said, the whole question of the repercussions of our defence expenditure on our trading position, and, last but not least, the question of the height of our reserves. I do not apologise to the House for reminding hon. Members that these reserves are still, by any reasonable standard, extremely low in relation to possible calls that may be made upon them. So long as that is the case we must continue to direct our policy to building them up. That means that, although we

shall be reasonable—and we have already dropped the extreme formula, the 75 per cent. formula, as my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth made plain—we cannot afford to throw away all these protections which we have had to impose, for fear of what might happen.
I think I have now dealt fairly fully with almost every question raised and I hope that the House will now give the Bill its Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hannan.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN PAYMENTS UNION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) MONEY

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified].

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make certain provision of a financial nature in connection with the operation of the European Payments Union Agreement and the furnishing of American aid in connection therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the use of the Exchange Equalisation Account and of the funds in that Account in the carrying out of any transaction by the Government of the United Kingdom in pursuance of the said Agreement;
(b) such issues out of the Consolidated Fund to the Civil Contingencies Fund, such raising of money under the National Loans Act, 1939, such repayments to the Exchequer and such issues from the Consolidated Fund for the repayment of debt as result from any provision of the said Act of the present Session enabling temporary advances to be made from the Civil Contingencies Fund to the Intra-European Payments Account and applying section three of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1946, in relation to those temporary advances;
(c) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required in connection with any debts to the Government of the United Kingdom which are outstanding debts within the meaning of the said Agreement or which may arise on the termination of that Agreement with regard to any party or on the liquidation of the European Payments Union, and—

(i) for the purpose of providing sums to he issued as aforesaid, the raising of money under the National Loans Act,


(ii) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Government of the United Kingdom representing interest on, or the repayment of principal of, any sums issued as aforesaid or any debts in connection with which any sums are so issued, and
(iii) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer as aforesaid and their application in redeeming or paying off debt or in payment of interest otherwise falling to be paid out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Before we leave this Money Resolution, I wish to raise the question of—

The Chairman: I collected the voices and the Motion has been passed. The only question which arises now is whether or not I report the Resolution to the House.

Mr. John Hay: I think, Sir, you were looking in the other direction and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) did not catch your eye.

The Chairman: I am sorry, but that is the position. I am afraid the Question has been put and agreed to.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I understood you to be collecting the voices as to whether the verbal Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman should be accepted. I had no idea you were putting the whole Motion.

The Chairman: I put the main Question in a modified form before the hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken and I collected the voices. I am sorry, but no doubt the hon. and gallant Member will raise any point he wishes to raise when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. In any case the Amendment on the Order Paper in his name—after "it Is expedient to authorise," insert: "the expenditure of a sum not exceeding two hundred million pounds through"—would not be in order now, and I have not selected it.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]

POULTRY FARM, CROWMARSH (LOSSES)

6.47 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: Three miles from Wallingford there is a small village called Crowmarsh, and in Crowmarsh there is a hatchery run by two gentlemen whose names are Mr. Guy Betts and Mr. John Bethell. They call their hatchery "Newnham Manor Poultry Farm" and it lies within my constituency. It is not a very large concern. It is quite a small business which is run by these two gentlemen, but they have made a reasonably good thing out of it and give a good deal of service not only to the local community but also to the production of food in the country as a whole.
The incidents I wish to relate to the House started in February of this year when Mr. Betts and Mr. Bethell set 48,000 eggs for hatching. I understand that the normal expectation is that about 70 per cent. of the eggs so set will be hatched out and on that basis they would expect about 33,600 chicks to appear in due course. During the period which followed they carried out fumigation in the normal way with formaldehyde gas in accordance with some regulations which are the subject of this Debate tonight.
During the period between 13th and 23rd March a number of eggs were hatched out amounting to 11,422, a very much smaller number than was originally anticipated; less, in fact, by some 22,000 chicks. I understand that it is believed that about half of the chicks one will get out of eggs will be pullets and the other half cockerels and, accordingly, the loss of pullets on that estimation would be about 11,000. The list price of pullets is, I understand, £15 per 100 and, therefore, as a result of the loss of hatching eggs which did not hatch out, these gentlemen have now suffered a serious financial setback amounting to some £1,650. How did this happen? That is the subject I wish to raise before the House.
I wish to turn to what is known as the Ministry of Agriculture Poultry Stock Improvement Plan which has been in operation for a number of years. Under that plan certain regulations are from time to time promulgated by the Ministry, and these two gentlemen had been in the habit of getting these regulations regularly. They had become an accredited poultry hatchery because they complied strictly


with the requirements of the Ministry and observed all the regulations. Accordingly, they received a particular stamp and they had, in addition, the right to use certain certification marks and registration, which they could put on their notepaper and other advertising matter. I am told that this is an extremely valuable method by which a hatchery or poultry breeder can be given a certain stamp to mark him from the rest.
The regulations for the 1949–50 season ran from 1st December, 1949, to 30th November of this year. Among those regulations are instructions relating to fumigation, this process which had already been carried out. The regulations provide for the fumigation by formaldehyde gas and it is interesting to note that this year the regulations provide for formaldehyde double the strength used last year to he used this year. I assume that what happened was that last year it was found that the strength was not sufficient to carry out what was intended, and, accordingly, the strength was doubled this year. The regulations provided the method by which fumigation should be carried out. On page 5 of the regulations this important information and advice is given:
Ports"—
that is to say, the ports of the hatching houses—
should be left open and the fumigation should continue for at least 20 minutes.
That is on page 5 of the regulations. On page 10 of the regulations there are a number of other notes which are headed "Special Notes for Hatcheries." The information on page 10 repeats a great deal of the information given on page 5 and, indeed, additional information is added. But one very important matter is completely omitted on page 10, and that is this important advice about the ports of the hatching houses being left open.
I would admit at once that anyone who studied the regulations carefully would not have failed to notice that important instruction on page 5 that the ports should be left open this year, when double strength fumigation was being used, as against keeping them closed last year. So far as Mr. Betts and Mr. Bethell were concerned, in due course they received a copy of the Poultry Stock Improvement Plan Regulations and that

copy I have in my hand. This is an interesting document because it is completely defective in an important essential. Pages 1 to 4 of the document are in proper sequence and order. There is no page 5. Page 8 is printed following page 4, but it is printed upside down, and page 6 has been printed on the reverse side of the sheet. Then follow pages 7 to 16 in proper order and sequence.
That was the document which these two men received and those were the regulations they were called upon to observe. They did not therefore have available to them that important instruction to which I have referred, which appeared on page 5, that the ports should be left open during the fumigation with formaldehyde gas, of this double strength. Page 10 contained what appeared to be complete instructions as to fumigation, but they did not know, and had no means of knowing, about the important fact that the ports should be kept open this year. They did look for page 5, but in any event page 5 appeared to be sandwiched between instructions relating to breeding poultry, with which they were not particularly concerned, and additional information, which again did not appear to them to be important or about which they need worry.
The resulting loss of chicks, as I have said, has meant a financial loss to these people of about £1,650. In addition, they have undoubtedly lost a good deal of their good will which they had built up over the years, because, as I have said, they serve their local area. They have also lost almost all their valuable stock and they are at their wits' end to know how, first, to replace the financial loss that they have suffered; and, second, how to replace the stock.
I have no doubt that it will be said at once by anyone studying the matter that, of course, they were negligent and careless to a certain extent. Having received a copy of a document which appeared to be defective, they ought to have written off to the Ministry for a proper copy. That is the sort of thing one might easily say, but we have to realise the sort of people that they are. They are poultry breeders and hatchers and they are extremely busy. They have very little staff to help them in their work. When they find a regulation coming into their hands—admittedly


defective—appearing to repeat all the regulations they have observed for the previous 12 months, they naturally say, "Page 5 does not affect us. It is obviously something about breeding, because pages 1, 2, 3 and 4 are about breeding, and, therefore, we need not worry. Anyway, here on page 10 are all the regulations referring to hatching and fumigation."
Having done that one might say that the loss was on their own heads, but, apart from the legal rights, there is a certain amount to be said for the point that it would not have happened, had it not been for what I must call negligence and carelessness in the Ministry in sending out what was a completely faulty copy of the regulation. If that had not been done their carelessness would not have arisen. It is worth while noticing that the Ministry, having had this matter drawn to their attention and appearing to take note of what happened here, made some alterations in the regulations sent out for next year, because the regulations relating to fumigation, including this important point about the ports being left open, are printed together on page 11 of the 1950–51 regulations. I have approached the Ministry themselves about this matter, and I have drawn the Minister's attention to the serious loss which these people have suffered. They themselves found that they were not getting very much help. They were told by the Ministry's officials that it was an unfortunate thing to have happened, but that the Ministry could accept no liability for the loss incurred. Accordingly, they consulted me.
I have had a certain amount of correspondence with the Minister of Agriculture. I want to read to the House a passage from a letter written on 25th September last. I had explained the circumstances in much the same way as I have tried to explain them tonight, and the paragraph in question from the Minister's letter reads as follows:
I have looked into Mr. Bett's claim for compensation in respect of this high incidence of mortality among his hatching chicks which occurred last March, and which it is alleged was due to the fact that he was supplied with a faulty copy of the regulations of the Poultry Stock Improvement Plan for the 1949–50 season. As you will appreciate"—
this is the point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House—
many thousands of copies of these regulations are distributed, and it is impossible to

check each individual copy before despatch; and in the event of an incomplete copy getting into circulation the onus for obtaining an amended copy must rest with the recipient.
It will be noted that no word of apology was offered. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he might have said that he was very sorry that this gentleman had suffered this loss mainly due to an incomplete copy of these regulations being put out. The Parliamentary Secretary appears to disagree with me on this point. I would have thought that he would have agreed that there should have been some word of apology.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I was disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman's argument about this result being mainly due to the incomplete copy of the regulations.

Mr. Hay: I apologise if I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, and can only hope that he will not disagree with the other point I was making. I hope he is with me in saying that his right hon. Friend might have been conciliatory and apologetic, because in the first case the mistake was that of the Ministry.
I approached the Minister to see whether some compensation could be granted to Mr. Betts and Mr. Bethell. I have pointed out the facts to the House, and I leave it to hon. Members to judge whether that claim was justified or not. It may be said straight away that they ought to have been more careful. That I do not deny, but if the Ministry had not been careless the other carelessness would not have arisen. An approach was made to the Minister to see if he would make an effort at compensation, not necessarily the complete compensation of £1,650 but an ex gratia sum, which would in some degree mitigate the tremendous loss that these people have suffered. They are now faced with what is little more than bankruptcy as a result of their loss, and I feel that the Ministry, even at this late stage, might reconsider the matter and offer some compensation to mitigate its effects.
If something like that is not done I do not know what is going to happen. These people will be put in a serious position unless they can replace their stock, maintain their good will and meet the financial claim now to be made upon


them. I can fairly say, without overreaching myself or putting it too high, that all this results from issuing an incomplete copy of a document. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that he is prepared to reconsider the matter, and that something will be given to compensate these people for the loss which they have sustained.

7.2 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): May I, first of all, in dealing with this matter say that I immediately offer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), for what it is worth, my regret that his constituents should have been involved in a loss of money in this way. However, I think the hon. Gentleman will feel, on reflection, that he has been unfair in alleging that my right hon. Friend has himself not offered some regret. My right hon. Friend has not admitted liability nor am I prepared to do so tonight, but in a letter which he sent to the hon. Gentleman on 25th September he says, in the penultimate paragraph:
I am very sorry about the serious financial loss sustained by Mr. Betts.
I do not think that that can be called anything else but an expression of regret.

Mr. Hay: I did not read it in that way. I read it as expression of the Minister's regret for the man's loss. What I thought might have been said was regret that this loss had occurred because of a faulty document sent out by the Ministry to the people concerned.

Mr. Brown: This is hedging. The thing to regret is that for some reason or another this gentleman suffered a loss, and I could not believe that my right hon. Friend, who is one of the most courteous of men, would have omitted to express regret. Therefore, I looked up the correspondence and he had written just as I thought he had.
I make no complaint about the way in which this case has been developed or about the general facts as given by the hon. Gentleman. The story of this matter is roughly as the hon. Gentleman put it. It all turns upon what deduction one draws from the history of events. On the question of a faulty document going out

with a page missing, I must point out that there were some 10,000 copies of this issue. No book publisher engaged in sending out a document on that scale could undertake to examine and proof read—that is what we are being asked to do—each one of the tens of thousands of documents. In fact, one must assume as we have received no other complaints, that 9,999 went out accurately. Therefore, I do not think it unreasonable for any publisher or sender of documents to assume that the person receiving it will be the one who will do the examining and the proof reading. If a document is received incomplete then he will find out that there is something wrong, and will exclaim, "I had better have the complete document."
In this case there does not seem to be any dispute that Mr. Betts did have his attention drawn to the fact that this document contained some differences from those of previous years. In fact, he was warned that he ought to study those differences with great care because they were very important. If that is done and the gentleman concerned is asked to sign an undertaking, as a condition of receiving the benefits of being accredited, that he had read the thing carefully and studied the differences, one is entitled to assume that he has done so.
The moment he reads it carefully, as he said he had done, it would be immediately obvious that an important page of this particular document, unfortunately, was not there. I am surprised that Mr. Betts went ahead with what, to a man with his experience, was obviously a very substantial change without having read carefully all the cautions, and so on, associated with it. I am unable to accept the view of the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Betts had no reason to think that page 5 affected him. With all respect, that appears to be like an explanation which was produced afterwards when the man was looking round to see how this happened.
There is ample references in the document to the need to study the page that was, in fact, missing. For example on page 2—there is no argument that that is not there—there is a paragraph headed "Accredited Hatcheries," which draws attention specifically to the conditions that should be observed and carried out,


and there is a reference to paragraphs 2, 4 and 5. It is, unfortunately, impossible to read paragraph 4 unless one has page 5. The very moment that his attention had been called to the importance that had to be attached to the very page that was missing, he should have seen that it was necessary to get that page. He went ahead instead, saying, "I do not think that means me." I do not think that that is an explanation which can hold water.
I realise that it is a great pity that there should have been a slip up in one of the 10,000 documents. I wish that that had not been so, but I do not feel there can be any grounds for us accepting liability. The whole thing was made perfectly clear, and every step was taken to draw attention to what was set out. He chose to go ahead with an imperfect document, having declared he had already read it when, in fact, he had not. This trouble ensued, and it is very difficult for me to see what else we could do.
We are asked to make some ex gratia grant. That is a request which is eminently reasonable and has something in it. One is attracted to the fact that this is a rather pleasant and sensible way to help a chap, whom we put up against a difficulty. We must remember this, however—in the first place, there can be all kinds of problems of this kind. One has to be very careful, in buying one's way out of a difficulty, not to let the taxpayer in for a whole lot of money which he is unwilling to pay. Anyone in the position of my right hon. Friend or, indeed, of myself tonight, must realise that it is not our own money we are dispersing; it is the taxpayers' money, we cannot see why the taxpayer should be called upon to pay any sum of money to Mr. Betts when Mr. Betts is in no different position from thousands of producers all of whom managed to study the regulations carefully.
The second point is that my right hon. Friend has no funds voted to him by this House from which he can make payments of this kind. For all those reasons, I do not feel that anything can be done to help the hon. Gentleman or his constituent any further. I feel that, when he went to read it, he ought to have been on guard in case the document had gone out with a page missing. Since he did not, for whatever reason may have

seemed to him to have been proper, decide to follow it up, as he was asked to do, and, therefore, obtain a complete copy, for that reason and for the others I have given, I can only express my deep sympathy.

Mr. Hay: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to ask two questions? Has anything been done in his Ministry to stop these faulty copies going out on future occasions; in other words, has this experience been taken into account; and is anything to be done in future to have these copies printed properly, instead of being produced as duplicated sheets, so that the risk of typographical error is reduced?

Mr. Brown: The question whether we should print them or not is a technical matter, because of the difficulties of getting printing done, but the documents are clear, and I gather that there is no complaint that they have not been clear. As a matter of fact, they are quite well produced. Therefore, I cannot promise that they will be printed. On the question of making sure that never again shall one go out with a page missing, that is an impossible undertaking to give. There are tens of thousands of such documents, as the hon. Gentleman must be aware, and, while there is this risk, we cut it down to the very minimum. If we get only one faulty copy in 10,000, I think we are keeping the margin of error to very narrow limits.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I would like to say a word or two in support of my hon. Friend, and I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary should not take umbrage because I am going to say something now. The reason why I have not spoken before is because I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman's reply would have been in far more handsome terms than it was, and I really feel that in this most remarkable series of coincidences some relief is justified.

Mr. Brown: That is discourteous.

Mr. Nugent: It is not in the least discourteous, because the hon. Gentleman has not really answered the problem. Here we have a change, a specific alteration, made to a previous regulation, and I feel that, as I have had some hand in drawing up these regulations, I should be


failing in my duty if I did not state my views.
We have heard that the previous method of fumigation was not efficient in dealing with this salmonella infection, and, therefore, considerable thought had been given to the proper method of incubator hygiene in order to control the disease. As a result, new regulations were drawn up providing for strong enough fumigation to destroy the salmonella germs. A most extraordinary fact concerning the framing of these new regulations is that the exposition of the method of fumigation appears in two places, on pages 5 and 10, but the vital point was that the safety device of leaving the ports of the incubator open during the period of fumigation was not on page 10, but only on page 5.
It is perfectly competent for the hon. Gentleman to say that these particular farmers should have read the regulations and should have known, because their attention was directed to it, that there was something which they should read on page 5, but it is not really enough to say that when, on another page, there was a complete set of directions as to how to do this fumigation. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman cannot escape all the responsibility in this matter, because it did happen that into the hands of these breeders went copies of the regulations which omitted the vital direction necessary to prevent the destruction of a large part of the hatching eggs which were set.
I understand that there are no funds to deal with an emergency of this kind, and I quite understand the dangerous precedent that may be involved, but that does not alter the fact that into the hands of these breeders went regulations which were incomplete in a very vital factor. The hon. Gentleman has not been able to say that there were no directions in the copy which they received for fumigating the incubators, and that it would be quite unreasonable to ask why they had not made inquiries. As these hygiene regulations appeared on two separate pages and were virtually complete except for this vital detail, it seems reasonable to say that, in this remarkable set of coincidences, there is some reason for the hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again and see if he cannot do something for these unfortunate poultry

farmers, who, through no fault of their own, through no fault that any reasonable and normal farmer——

Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman, who has taken the extraordinary course of repeating the speech of his hon. Friend after I have replied, address himself to this point? He says "through no fault of their own," or through no fault that any reasonable poultry farmer would have been expected to make, but will he now answer the point that, on page 2, they were specifically directed to read page 5? Is it not reasonable to expect that anybody, knowing he is expected to read page 5 and finds it is not there, will write for another copy of the regulations?

Mr. Nugent: I am certainly not repeating the speech of my hon. Friend; the points I am making are quite distinct, and the hon. Gentleman has still not answered them.
I entirely accept the point he made that there is a direction given on page 2 that farmers should read page 5, but the germane point is that complete directions for the fumigation of the incubators appear on page 10. Had there been no other directions for this fumigation, it would have been perfectly reasonable to say that this hatchery should have endeavoured to discover what the directions were. Due to that fault, I feel that, in this very extraordinary set of circumstances, there is something to be said for the hon. Gentleman looking at it again and trying to find a more generous solution, which I hope he will do.

ARREST, CAMDEN TOWN

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: I want to turn the attention of the House to another subject, which is of small importance in comparison with some of the matters which we discuss in this Chamber. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary to the Home Office for coming along at short notice to answer the case which I want to put before the House. The hon. Gentleman is always very courteous, but whether he will be as satisfactory tonight as he is courteous, I have some doubt.
The case which I want to raise, involves what is, to my mind, an injustice


towards one of the citizens of this country whose name is Charles Albert Raines, and who, some little time ago, endeavoured to assist the police and was rewarded in a most shocking way for the assistance he tried to give. Mr. Raines was going home one evening, when, at Camden Town, he heard the ringing of a police bell and saw a man running. Mr. Raines, like a good citizen, did what he thought at that time was his duty in intercepting the man, who, I might say, was in plain clothes. Mr. Raines, not a very strong man, got the worst of these exchanges and was, in fact, hit on the head with a truncheon.
This was not the end of this sad story, so far as Mr. Raines is concerned, because not only was he hit on the head with a truncheon when trying to assist the police, but he was also driven to the police station where a charge was preferred against him of obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. Nor is that the end of this extraordinary story about what happened to Mr. Raines. He was quite a normal, honest person and had been for three and a half years in the Army, which he left in 1938. He had worked as an engineer in a local cinema, and he has—I hasten to assure the House—no bad record so far as the police are concerned. In fact, he was, I am told, friendly with the police, though I doubt whether he is friendly with them now. Mr. Raines, for assisting the police, was dragged up in court the next day, and there he was dealt with by the magistrate.
I may say that I have the greatest hesitation in the ordinary way in commenting on what a magistrate says and the decision that he makes. I think, however, that some comment on the magistrate's remarks is essential in this case. The evidence was heard and Mr. Raines's case was dismissed.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): No. He was found guilty.

Mr. Shepherd: That makes my case even better. He was found guilty of obstructing the police, and he was ordered to pay 10s. costs. The magistrate, on this occasion, performed what some of us regard as a very doubtful public duty by telling Mr. Raines that this was the sort of thing that he ought to expect when he

went and poked his nose into other people's business. I want to ask tonight whether it is the view of the hon. Gentleman, and whether it is the view of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that people who go to the assistance of the police with the best of intentions should be regarded as poking their nose into other people's business.
This, to my mind, is a serious case, although it has its humorous aspects. For Mr. Raines it is a very serious case indeed. What is the sum total of the cost of his public spiritedness? It is, first, that he was ordered to pay 10s. costs, and, second, that he lost one day's pay when he had to appear at the police court. He also had a new suit very seriously damaged by blood stains from the injuries to his head made by the truncheon. I ask the hon. Gentleman why this sort of charge is preferred. It was, at its best, a malicious and vindictive charge. Why was it that some officer at Camden Town police station did not see that it would do tremendous damage to the prestige of the Force and to the extent to which people would be inclined to help the police, and stop such a charge going forward? We cannot say, of course, much about the comments of the magistrate, but I doubt whether many hon. Members in this House would approve of the comments which were made.
My own view is that co-operation between the police and the citizen is essential today, if we are to combat crime. I should have thought that, if the Home Secretary supports the view taken by the magistrate and the action taken by the police, he could find no better way of stopping that co-operation. The House will appreciate that it is quite impossible when one is called upon to go to the aid of the police, to know where one is before one starts. Assistance to the police in circumstances of this kind must be immediate and automatic, and unless it is so, it is of no value.
The Home Secretary, unlike the Minister of Agriculture, has a fund upon which certain claims can be made in circumstances similar to this, and I wrote to him that I felt that this was such a bad case, both from the point of view of elementary justice and from the effect that it would have on people going to the assistance of the police, that he ought to do two things: first, pay Mr. Raines back


the 10s. which he was ordered to pay as costs, and second, pay Mr. Raines the amount which he lost for one day's pay.
I am sorry to have to tell the House that the Home Secretary wrote to me on 19th October, stating that, although he had considered the case carefully, he could not do this. He said that there was good legal authority for the view that an assault on a police officer was no answer to the charge that the defendant did not know that the person assaulted was a constable. That seems a rather unfortunate attitude on the part of the Home Secretary. I should have thought that the interest of combating crime would not allow the Home Secretary to support what happened on this occasion. I should have thought that t would have been a noble gesture, and one which would have helped cooperation between the police and the public, if he had done as I suggested and made these payments to Mr. Raines.
I may not, of course succeed in persuading the hon. Gentleman who will answer that he should make this repayment. What I am anxious to put to the hon. Gentleman is that he should not support the charge brought against Mr. Raines on what must appear to be purely malicious grounds, and that he should not subscribe to the unfortunate statement of the magistrate in this case, that a man who goes poking his nose into other people's business must expect to find a reward.
I think that this is an important case, although, in relative terms, it may not seem significant to a lot of people. I think that the ordinary man who tries to help the police needs some protection against such harsh and unconscionable treatment as that to which Mr. Raines was subjected.

7.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of the points which he was going to raise, and I will try to deal with them. In the very early hours of the morning of 26th August, a police car with two police officers in it was chasing a stolen car. The stolen car crashed, and two men jumped out and ran in different directions. The two police officers jumped out of their car, and one followed one man and one the other. One of these men ran

into the courtyard of a block of L.C.C. flats and the police officer ran after him, calling out for help. Mr. Raines who was in the court-yard thereupon jumped out and tackled the unfortunate policeman.
The policeman shouted, "I am a police officer" and struggled with Mr. Raines; used his truncheon and freed himself. Mr. Raines was arrested. The facts that I have outlined now were recounted at the police station in Mr. Raines's presence. Mr. Raines did not then suggest that there was a mistake or that he had been trying to help the police. He said "Yes, I know" and he made no complaint when he was charged with obstruction. Later, at the police court, before he came before the magistrate, he said this:
I heard the police gong sometime before a car went into Rowlett's Place. Two men got out of the first car and then you policemen got out of the second car and ran after them. In the commotion I just made a grab at one of them.
He had been charged and he made no complaint at all, and there is no evidence of malice whatsoever.

Mr. Shepherd: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Mr. Raines was doing anything other than he should have been doing in the circumstances; he is not suggesting that he was assisting these people who were committing a felony.

Mr. de Freitas: There was nothing to show from what Mr. Raines said up to the time he went to the police court that that was not the case. I am dealing now with the hon. Member's very serious allegation that this prosecution was brought about by malice. When he told his story to the magistrate, the magistrate said, "Why did you not stop the first man?" He replied, "I do not know." Then he said, "I only saw one man." The magistrate found him guilty of obstruction, but, in mitigation of his offence, did accept his statement that his obstruction was not wilful; and it is for that reason that for this extremely serious offence of obstructing the police, on which he was found guilty, he was dismissed with the very small penalty of a mere payment of 10s. costs.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not the hon. Gentleman know, as well as I know, that there are certain circumstances in connection with the presence of Mr. Raines,


at that point, of a kind that makes the statement made by the hon. Gentleman wholly impossible? It is a serious thing when the hon. Gentleman knows that there was nothing at all possible on those lines.

Mr. de Freitas: Since the hon. Member has raised this matter and has cast doubt upon the integrity of a police officer and, incidentally, upon my integrity, I must say that this man was charged because there was no evidence—and Mr. Raines himself had advanced no evidence—that the circumstances were otherwise. It was a perfectly clear case for the police to bring this man forward. Some of them still think—though the magistrate has held to the contrary—that he was there for other purposes. But in view of what the hon. Member knows he should not have raised that.
This man was charged with obstruction and he was found guilty. The magistrate accepted his version that it was not a case of wilful obstruction. That being so, he dismissed the case with what would have been a ridiculous penalty, if he had found him guilty of wilful obstruction, of 10s. costs. The hon. Member has really made a great deal out of this which is not justified. As to his allegation that the magistrate penalised Mr. Raines for "poking his nose into other people's business," I have heard no evidence of that at all. It is extraordinarily unlikely that this should be so, because this man who had escaped as a result of Mr. Raines's intervention was eventually found and arrested, through the help of a resident of those flats. So far from anything being said by the magistrate which would not encourage a citizen to intervene in such cases, the magistrate complimented this man and thanked him very much for his assistance to the police.
Ignorance cannot be a defence to a charge of obstruction, and Mr. Raines was found guilty. The magistrate accepted his statement that it was not wilful and he, therefore, discharged him on payment of 10s. costs. Mr. Raines has not appealed against this conviction, no new facts have been indicated tonight, and my right hon. Friend has no reason for intervening in this matter.

ST. PAUL'S CRAY ESTATE (DOCTORS)

7.33 p.m.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for being present at such short notice to reply on the subject that I am raising on the Adjournment, namely, the method of appointing doctors to the London County Council estate area known as St. Paul's Cray. I apologise for the very short notice, but the speed at which appointments are made in this area is so rapid that I had to seize the first opportunity.
A new, large London County Council estate is being built in the area of St. Paul's Cray. It comprises over 3,000 houses, and a large population from the London County Council area is being transported out there. Naturally, that gives rise to scope for more medical practitioners, and it is the manner in which these appointments are made that I wish to bring to the notice of the House. Obviously, with a new and growing population, there is every scope for a doctor to obtain and build up a strong and active practice in a very short time.
It would appear likely that such a desirable and obvious opportunity would be seized upon, and sought after, by any young doctor wishing to establish himself in medical practice or, indeed, by those who were in the Services during the war and were not able to build up practices for themselves. One could have expected that such appointments would be advertised and such opportunities offered to all those who might wish to seize them. One would also expect that such applications, after advertisement by the responsible Medical Practices Committee, would bring in names from which that Committee would select doctors to practise on this estate.
During the past four months I have received strenuous protests against the very active Communist activities of two of the four doctors appointed to one particular practice on this estate. Because of that, I investigated the method of their appointment and sought to find out what competition there had been when they succeeded in being appointed. I found that Dr. J. D. Paulette was granted, by the county council, a house compulsorily acquired from a private


owner, and that, having got those premises, he applied to the Medical Practices Committee, saying he had been granted, not a house, but the doctor's house on the estate and, therefore, asked them to give him permission to practise.
At that time, there were other doctors who had submitted their names to the London County Council as wishing to practise on this estate, but only the name of Dr. Paulette appears to have gone forward and, as there was only one applicant and a growing demand by a new population, the Medical Practices Committee had no option but to appoint him. Subsequently, a second doctor, Dr. L. M. Franklin, was appointed to Dr. Paulette's practice. He had been on the London County Council list for houses, but he subsequently acquired one privately in the area and withdrew his name from the county council list. Later, a third doctor, Dr. Tuckmann, was appointed to practise, he having applied to practise with Dr. Paulette. Finally, a Dr. Tepper was appointed. He was allocated a London County Council house on the estate, and he applied to the Committee that he might be permitted to practise, having had premises and facilities given him by the L.C.C.
The position of the Medical Practices Committee is obviously prejudiced when they have only one name submitted to them and when that applicant claims that he has the premises and that, virtually, he is allowed to start up in practice. Again, the Medical Practices Committee virtually have to accept the nomination of the London County Council so that, in fact, the L.C.C., by deciding which doctors should be allocated a house from which they can practise, are choosing the doctors on this estate instead of the Medical Practices Committee.
I recognise the right of the London County Council to choose their tenants, but I should not think they had any statutory right to choose doctors. In submitting only their choice of tenant to the Medical Practices Committee they are usurping the statutory right of choice of that Committee. It is a matter for very grave concern among a large number of my constituents that of these four doctors in a joint practice two are active, professed and zealous Communists. I am not in a position to pass an opinion on

the political beliefs of the other two, but, as they are joined in a partnership for which there seems to have been support in some quarters and accommodation made available, I think this is a matter which should be investigated.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the hon. Lady think that a doctor is any the worse as a doctor for being a Communist?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No. I am not casting doubts on a man's ability to practise his profession. The doctor may be brilliant. I am merely pointing out that these privileges and opportunities of obtaining a good, growing practice on a new estate have, by some peculiar coincidence, been given to people who are using no small amount of their time in pursuing active Communist propaganda.
I ask the Minister if he would investigate this matter and see that any application submitted to local authorities by doctors wishing to practise in these areas shall be submitted to the Medical Practices Committee, so that that Committee may then say, "We choose doctors A, B and C and we look to you to provide the accommodation for them." Secondly, I ask that it should be arranged that, in these new satellite or quasi-satellite towns, with new and growing populations, these appointments, which offer great opportunities to build up a practice in a short while, instead of having to break into territory well served with doctors, should be advertised and should be open to all members of the medical profession who might want to establish themselves in practice.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some assurance on these points. This question has been a matter for grave concern and there has been much consultation over the last few months. I have discussed it with both the secretary of the local Medical Practices Committee and with the chairman of the National Medical Practices Committee. I hope the Minister will be able to give me some assurance tonight.

Mr. Daines: I was interested in that part of the hon. Lady's speech in which she dealt with the number of medical men who were Communists. She said that that was "by coincidence." Is she saying that they were chosen because they were Communists?


Does the hon. Lady believe that that was why they were chosen? She cannot dismiss it by saying that it was by coincidence.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think the selection of names to go forward to the Medical Practices Committee shows signs of very definite political prejudice.

Mr. Manuel: That is too funny for words.

Mr. Tomney: The hon. Lady is accusing the London County Council of canvassing for the Communist Party to be given these appointments.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Even if the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) thinks it funny, I suggest that the London County Council might show some concern at the very active and widely-known political practices of these gentlemen.

7.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I came here at very short notice tonight to answer the debate initiated by the hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Miss Hornsby-Smith), but I must admit that I was surprised that such a serious allegation as this should have been made without my being given notice of its character and of the arguments to be used. I bitterly resent the manner in which this subject has been raised tonight. I understood that the hon. Lady was raising the question of medical practices in this area and that her complaint was, rather, that an additional partner had been taken into a certain practice in St. Paul's Cray.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My primary point was the method of appointment. It is, however, the allegations, as the hon. Gentleman calls them, which have brought about the investigation into the method of appointment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I would say immediately, and I hope with the agreement of every hon. Member, that it is highly undesirable that allegations of this character should be made in the House, first without adequate notice and, second, without any supporting evidence of any real character. I think all hon. Members present will remember an Adjournment

debate, which we had as recently as last night, on the question of the rights of individuals. It is very strange to me that, after the very serious discussion we had last night, it should now be implicitly suggested that the political views of doctors should be taken into account on their appointment. I have not heard in the House for a long time a more reactionary and more undesirable statement than the hon. Lady's; if she is not able to withdraw her remarks, I hope she will choose an opportunity, with proper notice, to amplify them in the proper way so that they may be properly ventilated and discussed.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I remarked that it was a coincidence; nowhere in my speech did I suggest that their appointments should be judged by their political beliefs.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I believe that hon. Members who are here will agree that they could draw only one assumption from the remarks that were made, and I resent that assumption as bitterly as I resent an unwarranted allegation being made against the Medical Practices Committee.

Mr. Daines: The inference left on my mind was quite clear. It was that the hon. Lady was saying that these medical men were chosen because they were Communists. I may, perhaps, be a little dumb, but that is certainly the impression I had.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It seems to me that an attempt is being made to make an allegation against the Medical Practices Committee, a body of very high standing and repute throughout the country—and I think it is fair to say, with the medical profession generally—and also an allegation against the London County Council.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I made the accusation against the London County Council; that is the purpose of raising the matter on the Adjournment. But I have cast no reflection on the Medical Practices Committee. If they have only one name submitted to them, and figures show that there is a rising population, they have to appoint that one person. They assured me that only one name had been submitted, but I found that the London County Council had other names which were not passed to the Medical Practices Committee. The fault does not lie with that Committee.

Mr. Blenkinsop: So far as that part of her speech is concerned, I hope the hon. Lady will either withdraw the implication behind her remarks more fully than she has done so far, or that she will substantiate them more fully at a time when we can have a full opportunity of discussing the matter properly.
On the broader issue which I understood she was raising, it is a fact that any doctor may apply to go on to the list in any area and can be refused only if the area is over-doctored. It is the case that vacancies are advertised only when a sitting doctor withdraws or when the area is classified as being under-doctored. It is only then that advertisement takes place. It is the natural and inevitable practice, and one which is desired by the medical profession, that a doctor has full liberty to apply to go into an area, provided that it is not over-doctored. The Medical Practices Committee have every right to accept him; in fact, they cannot refuse him unless the area is over-doctored.
The argument which has been put forward by the hon. Lady seems to me fantastic. The whole medical profession desire to have this freedom for doctors to set up practice, and the question of advertisement arises only where there is a withdrawal of an existing doctor or where the area is under-doctored. The applications go, of course, to the Medical Practices Committee, through the local executive council. Applications for houses go, of course, to the London County Council.
I cannot see that any suggestion of collusion or anything of the sort can be properly brought against the London County Council. I would say also that any doctor can apply to the Medical Practices Committee, who will grant provisional permission to practise, contingent on accommodation being granted. That is the normal case here.
I had understood that the hon. Lady intended to question the desirability of additional practices being established in St. Paul's Cray, because a question about this has been raised by the Kent and Canterbury Executive Council. A letter has been sent to the Minister about it. With regard to the other matters which the hon. Lady raised, I can only say that she has given us very little notice to investigate what are, and what I hope she

realises are, very serious charges. I repeat my request to her that she should secure a fuller opportunity either to substantiate those charges or to withdraw them in toto.

7.52 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I should like to refer to the latter part of the Parliamentary Secretary's answer. He has stated the position fairly. This machinery of the Medical Practices Committee has been evolved in order to secure a better distribution of doctors and to secure that, where it is desired to attract a doctor to an under-doctored area, there is the proper machinery afforded to all doctors who wish to apply to do so and to have their applications considered. This is a particular instance of a general difficulty underlying the mechanics of the Medical Practices Committee.
Put plainly, it is this: if a vacancy should arise through the death or retirement of a doctor, and it is decided to fill that vacancy, and the full procedure of advertisement and selection has been followed, then if a doctor—whether he is an applicant or not—has obtained, by purchase or otherwise, the use of the professional premises from which the practice was conducted, or the only appropriate professional premises in the area, it is very difficult to make an effective choice of any other person. I am not stating this in a controversial way; that is the difficulty which the Medical Practices Committee, with the co-operation of the profession, are trying to tackle—the way of short-circuiting a proper form of selection.

Mr. Tomney: So that a man can be in possession of the premises without having the appointment on an estate.

Dr. Hill: Yes, but I was giving the instance of the closed area, or the vacancy which has to be filled in any area, in order to give the illustration about advertisement. In other words, a medical practice cannot be conducted without the appropriate professional premises, and while there remains the loophole of the premises being dealt with differently, there is this impediment in the existing machinery. I stated that because I believe a knowledge of it to be necessary to the understanding of this problem. That is the difficulty we are seeking to overcome.
In this case the position seems to be, in effect, that the London County Council believe that additional doctors are needed on the estate. I say that because they built the house for the purpose. The London County Council, believing that, sought to secure the appointment of an additional doctor. As I understand the gravamen of the charge it is this: that the London County Council, in some way or another—and I do not know the method, and I am not criticising the method—selects a doctor for the tenancy of the house, and, having made that selection for the occupancy of the house, then puts forward that name to the Medical Practices Committee as its recommendation for the person to be selected. In fact, the Medical Practices Committee, whatever it may think of the selection or of the London County Council, has no alternative but to take that nominee. Those are the facts as I understand them to have been narrated. I have no personal knowledge of the facts.
If that be the case there is, I think, a very good reason for the London County Council to follow another method: to inform the official machinery of the vacancy, and to ask for the necessary advertisement to be published, so that the necessary selection can be made through the proper machinery; and, having done that, to allot to the selected doctor the house it has built to be used as the doctors' house on the estate.
I do ask—whatever other issues may be involved in this—that we look at the general problem which seems, I think, to have particular application in this case. I think the House will agree that, there having been established in the early years of the National Health Service this new machinery which is being adapted as we go along to meet particular difficulties, it would be a pity if the system were short-circuited by a local authority, however it did it, in naming a doctor as the tenant of the house and in fact saying, "This doctor is to be the new doctor in practice on the estate." We should have one general method, approved by the Ministry and under the supervision of the Medical Practices Committees, to avoid this particular instance of tenancy being the best part of the law.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into this aspect of the matter, partly to protect the local authorities from

the invidious task of picking out a doctor, but substantially in order that the system of selection shall apply whether the house has been built by the local authority or not.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I should just like to add a word about the point which the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) has raised, which, of course, applies quite widely in connection with the filling of vacancies where a doctor has, perhaps, died and his premises may be available for some incoming doctor. It has been the case, as the hon. Member is probably fully aware, that in some cases a particular doctor has secured the premises and that has, in fact, determined the choice of the Medical Practices Committee. He has quite rightly said that this is a matter which is under consideration between the Ministry and the British Medical Association, to try to find some suitable way of dealing with what is a real difficulty.
I quite appreciate the points that he has raised, and we should be prepared to look into the question of the practice of either the London County Council or any other authority in relation to this particular problem. What I resented so deeply—and still do—was the implication that this was tied up with some preferential treatment for alleged Communist supporters. I quite appreciate that there is a problem in relation to doctors' premises, because it is very frequently the case that unless a doctor has the premises from which to practise made available to him, either the premises that have been vacated by some previous doctor, or some premises that have been provided specially by a local authority, then the selection of the Medical Practices Committee is largely rendered nugatory.
I appreciate that point, and I can give the assurance that we will look into the question of the practice, not only of one particular authority, but of authorities generally, in relation to the discussions we are already having with the British Medical Association to try to clear up what is undoubtedly a very difficult problem.

8.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure that the House will have noticed with great interest the remarkable change in tone of the Parlia-


mentary Secretary between his first speech and his second speech. In his second speech he has conceded the whole case made by my hon. Friend, and treated it in a reasonable manner.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I was undoubtedly a good deal incensed by what I still regard as the wholly unjustifiable aspersions that were being cast upon highly responsible bodies without our having been given any notice at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman can scarcely get out of it with that. He proceeded to substantiate the accusation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Miss Hornsby-Smith), who gave chapter and verse. He said that the selection by the Medical Practices Committee in these circumstances "is largely nugatory." That is a stronger case even than was made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The point that was so questionable to raise in the House, and the allegation that was so questionable, was the allegation that doctors with Communist views were being appointed, which were made against both the Medical Practices Committee and the London County Council, and the question of the desirability or otherwise of appointing Communists as practitioners.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am afraid that evil communications corrupt good manners, and I think the hon. Gentleman has been in close association with his right hon. Friend. He will not find in HANSARD, nor will anybody else, the slightest suggestion by my hon. Friend, or any imputation whatever of any kind against the Medical Practices Committee. When the hon. Gentleman brought up that issue just now it was either a singular lapse of memory on his part or a maladroit attempt to drag a red herring across the problem and the case made by my hon. Friend.
I do not intend to devote too much time to his speech, because, as he said, he was incensed, and his blood pressure had risen. He was not quite responsible for what he was saying.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I made it clear that after the debate that we had had last night on questions of the rights of individuals—which were raised, quite

properly, by hon. Members on his side of the House—it was only proper that they should remember some of the arguments they raised then, when discussing these very important professional matters. I think I had every right—and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree—to be incensed at the manner in which those allegations were made.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to ride away from this question. He had afterwards to admit, on the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) that, in certain circumstances, the machinery of his own Act was being rendered entirely nugatory; that is to say, that the selection—and this is the gravamen of the charge made by my hon. Friend—of a doctor was being brought about not by the Medical Practices Committee, but by the chance of the allocation of a house to a person who was applying. That was the case that was being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way so frequently, but it is important to get this matter clear. I quite appreciate the argument and the point put forward by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). We should have listened with much less heat to the point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Miss Hornsby-Smith) had she not introduced a wild and wholly undocumented charge about Communism and its relations with these bodies. I think that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at HANSARD tomorrow he will see that there was every justification for the attitude I took.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do my best to give way on every possible occasion because we are anxious to get this matter straight, but I listened with great interest to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, and, for greater accuracy, I took them down; and the charge which she brought to the notice of this honourable House, and, in particular, the documentation which she supplied, was that a certain doctor had been granted a house by the L.C.C., that his name was put forward to the Medical Practices Committee, that he said, "I


have been granted the doctor's house," and that, on that account, he was given the practice.
The Parliamentary Secretary went all the way in admitting that, and, indeed, said himself that there were a number of these cases. He said that, in connection with that local authority and with other local authorities, he was going into the matter with the British Medical Council and other bodies concerned; and he gave an undertaking to the House, which, I am sure, the House will be grateful to have, that he was continuing to press this inquiry and would go into this very problem. He himself said that this was a question that rendered nugatory the enormously important machinery of the Medical Practices Committee—and the hon. Member for Luton will agree this was one of the key points in the whole of the discussions on the National Health Service Act when it was going through Parliament.
My hon. Friend's case was that the doctor was being selected by the L.C.C. and not by the Medical Practices Committee, and this point was conceded in the second speech of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman took a careful note of what the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Miss Hornsby-Smith) said. Did he not note the references to Communism and Communists, and does he not think that those references to Communism were an attempt to influence the argument by introducing political hysteria and prejudice?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Certainly not. It did not influence the argument at all. I am coming to that point.
It did not influence the argument, for the Minister conceded the whole case which my hon. Friend was making. She made three points. First, that the house having been obtained the doctor in question could put forward his application and say, "I have the house." Second, that the authority allotting the house, to all intents and purposes allotted him the practice. I am sure that the House will agree that those two points were subsequently conceded in toto by the spokesman for the Government.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is getting away from the case.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not in the habit of getting away from any case. When

it comes to getting away from a case there are few more adept than the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in getting away from a case. I say this, that my hon. Friend then said that this led, in practice, to the selection of undesirable persons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, and she gave her opinion that these persons, were, in fact, persons who had certain——

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Lady said they were Communists.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I did not wish to use the word. It seems to excite hon. Gentlemen opposite so much, that when they hear the word "Communist" or "Communism" they get a rush of blood to the head and forget entirely all the other arguments. Indeed, in this case, as we have seen, the word so much excited the Parliamentary Secretary that he entirely failed to reply to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, and it was not until he was recalled to the point by the hon. Member for Luton, who did not use the naughty word and did not succeed in exciting the Minister, that he got to the case.
As to whether the persons were or were not undesirable, I am certainly in no position to judge. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst is entitled to her own political opinions, as, indeed, all in this House are entitled to their own political opinions; and she is entitled to consider that the proportion of people with views x is larger than the proportion in the country as a whole or even in the City of London. She said that it was an odd coincidence that this large proportion of persons with political views x had been selected. We can imagine the feeling of the Minister if they had all been Conservatives.

Mr. Blenkinsop: What we want to get from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a clear enunciation as to whether or not he believes, as apparently the hon. Lady believes, that political considerations should be taken into account at all in the appointment of doctors to practices.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I have had so much misrepresentation of what I said that I think I might reply to the hon. Gentleman by saying that at no time did I say that political opinions should influence the choice. The whole weight


of my argument was to the effect that the properly constituted authority, the Medical Practices Committee, should be able to perform its proper function of selection. I said that it was because of their very active political work that I first had shoals of protests about these gentlemen, and that gave rise to my investigating, with the various medical bodies, how many applications there had been when they were selected.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is clear that the hon. Lady has replied to the hon. Gentleman's question, but if he wishes it from me he can certainly have it from me.
I certainly think it most inadvisable that political opinions should be brought in on either the one side or the other. I must say that I have heard the question of political opinions brought in by the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend on occasions with a great deal more vehemence than was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst in referring to the proportion of persons of one political opinion or the other who happened to have been allocated to this practice. I could give chapter and verse but I will not do so, because we do not wish to raise heat unduly. I fear that if my professional colleague the hon. Member for Luton were to have another accession of blood pressure he might suffer permanent damage, and none of us would wish that to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst raised a perfectly proper point, to which the Minister agreed, that by choosing the houses the L.C.C. were virtually allocating the practices.

Mr. James Hudson: This has all been said.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Then it is a good thing that we are all agreed that it was a perfectly proper thing for my hon. Friend to say. I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the extreme exacerbation of the Debate was not due to the main gravamen of her charge and that everybody now agrees that this is a thing which should be got rid of and that the House as a whole is grateful to her for raising the point.

Mr. Dames: I have been listening patiently to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for five minutes, endeavouring

to understand the point he is trying to make. Could he help us by coming to the point, so that we may follow his remarks?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There is no difficulty about coming to the point, which is that the L.C.C. is contravening the will and intention of this House in relation to the medical practices in a certain estate. That is agreed by the Minister, who is at present investigating ways to get rid of that.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is up to his old games of trying to twist words into meaning more than they ever denoted. What I said was that we are quite well aware that where a doctor has gone out of practice and a practitioner has taken over his premises in advance of a decision by the Medical Practices Committee, they are put in a very difficult position. That matter is under discussion. I have also said that in so far as it is true that local authorities are adopting the practice of making decisions as to which doctors' houses shall be allocated to which particular doctors, we shall take this into account in the discussions we are carrying on with the British Medical Association. I am not accepting merely on the views put forward here tonight that that has already happened. Naturally, I must have full and proper evidence of it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman now concedes that if it has not happened, the presumption that it is happening is so strong that he is in active negotiation with the B.M.A. to prevent these hypothetical cases arising, and that he is also——

Mr. Blenkinsop: No. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is very wily. I am quite used to the way in which he spins out his words and makes up new stories, but I do not believe that he should be allowed to get away with that. I did not say that at all. I said that in so far as this was occurring, we would take it into account in our discussions with the B.M.A.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is exactly what I said. We now have it from the Minister who, a few moments ago, was trying to raise the utmost prejudice against my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst because she was saying exactly the


same thing. In so far as it is occurring, anyhow, the Minister is investigating it. In so far as it is occurring, it is, in his own words, rendering the selection by the Medical Practices Committee largely nugatory.

Mr. Daines: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has already said it six times.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: To get it through the skull of the hon. Member it is necessary to say it 16 times, and I am——

Mr. J. Hudson: On a point of order. After that confession of repeating the same thing 16 times, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now come under any rule of the House for resorting to tedious repetition?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): That does not arise until I have taken notice of the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has repeated himself tediously. I would respectfully remind the House that we are not in Committee.

Mr. Daines: Further to that point of order. The right hon. and gallant Member has already said that he has repeated it six times to get it through my skull. On his own confession, therefore, he must be guilty of tedious reiteration.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It had not occurred to me up to this point.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On the question of "iteration," it is necessary to iterate several times to get it through the hon. Member's skull. On the question of "tedious," Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker alone is the judge. The House has often been the victim of opinions expressed by Mr. Speaker, and as he is the judge of what goes on here it will often continue to be so. I can only regret that the arithmetic of the other hon. Member who interrupted is so poor that he cannot distinguish between six and 16, but that is all that one can expect from the kind of interruption which he made.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Cut the cackle and get on with the business.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can see why hon. Members opposite are so nervous about this. This is what makes them so annoyed. They are annoyed and frightened because the Medical Practices

Committee is being sidetracked by the action of a local authority, and as a hypothetical chance that this has been happening has been conceded by the Minister they are afraid they will not be able to get away from it by their usual practice of blunt denial.
The House, then, is all at one that a valuable service has been performed this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst and that a grievance has ben aroused which the Minister has said he is now inquiring into.

Mr. Thomas: Are we to conclude from what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said that all he has said so far is about this one hypothetical chance?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member cannot have been listening to his own Minister. What I have been saying up to now has been founded on the words of his own Minister. I am not surprised that he did not understand the words of his own Minister because he delivered two entirely contradictory speeches; but tomorrow morning we will be able to read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Mr. Blenkinsop rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is to speak again, he must ask for the leave of the House.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I merely intervened, and the right hon. Gentleman gave way, on a point he had just made. The right hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth which I did not use. I dealt fairly with the major serious challenge made by the hon. Lady in the first remarks I made to the House. It is true that there were further matters that I dealt with when they were put forward much more logically by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill).

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the Minister looks it up he will see that he did not deal in his speech with the grave charge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, but that it required the second intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, to bring this charge to his notice. I sympathise with him in that and I pity him in that, but I cannot resile from my position that he did not deal with it in his first speech. What we


would like to know further—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] Has the hon. Member any remark to make?—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh no, go on."] I thought we should come to agreement.

Mr. Daines: I must say that when the hon. Member for Luton finished the case we knew just where we were, but the further the right hon. and gallant Gentleman goes the more confused we get in trying to understand the problem.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What a pity. The hon. Member will no doubt have to spend more time in this House in order to learn the business of listening to debate and to appreciate the arguments brought forward. I know it is difficult for a Socialist to listen to any argument, but in time he will come to it. Let him endure and the process will work. The Minister said that this matter was being gone into. He said he would be prepared to look into the practice of the L.C.C. or anyone on this problem in relation to doctor's premises. Can we ask how far he has got? Has he already started the discussions?

Mr. Tomney: When we get to the gravamen of the charge, could we also have the gravedigger?

Lieut. - Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member's humour is perhaps a little laboured. If he might think again and think longer when he wishes to make a joke in the House perhaps it will receive the approval of friends of his on the opposite benches, which he has singularly failed to achieve in the jejune interruption he made.
I was asking the Minister—since he can only speak again by leave of the House and I am sure that we will be willing to grant that leave—how far he has got with the discussions he thinks necessary to deal with these hypothetical cases and when he thinks he will be able to report to the House on the proposals he will no doubt have to bring forward to deal with it? These are points which arise further from his second speech, and I am sure that the House, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, will be glad to hear his answers.

Mr. Blenkinsop: With the leave of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—all I would say is that the general problem has

been under consideration with the British Medical Association for some time. The——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As some hon. Members said "No," the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to continue to speak, leave having been refused.

HOUSING, SCOTLAND

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I am particularly pleased tonight to have this opportunity of ventilating a side of the great human problem of Scottish housing which is perturbing many of us on all sides of the House, as hon. Members are having complaints increasingly because of the rapid deterioration of certain types of buildings in their constituencies.
I do not want to be misunderstood on the opposite side of the House. I am not in any way criticising the Government for not getting on with the job. As an individual I am intensely dissatisfied at the large proportion of homes still necessary in Scotland, but I am aware of the difficulties in labour and material and in getting the full co-operation of the local authorities, that confront our Scottish Department. I am aware that in my county of Ayr there have been many thousands of houses and homes provided, and that, four-and-a-half years after the war, more houses had been built and occupied in the County of Ayr than were built in 17½ years after the first world war by Conservative Governments in power over that period. I do not want to dwell too much on the past, as I feel that can be overdone. I want to deal with the future and to confine the problem within the orbit of unfit houses and how best we can approach a more rapid solution of the problem of replacing bad homes.
We know the Government have been making special allocations to certain types of workers and certain communities throughout Scotland. Miners and agricultural workers have had extra allocations of houses, but I want to draw attention to a particular problem which arises in a grave manner in my constituency. It has as its basis the fact that at one time it was an intensely active coal-mining district. I am referring to the landward area of Dalry in the County of Ayr. Owing to the fact that it was a coal producing area many years ago, many


colliers' houses were built there by the colliery companies of that time. We refer to them in our country as "miners' rows." I am convinced that many of these miners' rows are well over 100 years old.
They are rapidly falling into disuse because coal is no longer being produced there. However the houses have been kept on and rents are still collected from them regularly. I visited these places last Saturday and had a most distressful time going through some of them. Of the 20 or 30 I visited, however, I was impressed by the good type of tenant and family residing in them. The houses were scrupulously clean, showing an active attempt on the part of the tenants to keep a good roof over their heads.
What has happened? Not long ago these miners' rows have changed ownership. An individual has come along and bought the houses from the old mining interests for their salvage value. They are not yet condemned although, in my opinion, they are certainly not fit for human habitation. This individual is collecting the rents but, unfortunately, is collecting more than the rents. Recently he has sent along workmen who have stripped from the rooftops the heavy lead cleadding which was keeping out the rain and making the houses tenable for the people residing them. This material was stripped off for its monetary value and has been replaced by some shoddy, light material. Because of its nature the workmen cannot fasten it to the old boarding in the roof, and in practically every home I visited, the ceilings were down. The result is that in wet weather the tenants have put out receptacles to collect the water dripping from the ceiling, they have to put covers over the beds, or remove these into a dry corner in order to have some place to sleep. Mostly the houses are of the but and ben type, some of them single apartments. In some both ceilings are down.
I have asked the Ayr County Council this week to do what they can to get this individual to face his legal responsibility of keeping these houses wind and water tight as long as he is collecting rents. I hope that some pressure can be exerted by the County Council and, if necessary, by the Department of Health in order that this individual will not be allowed further to strip these dwellings to get some monetary reward for the

small expense he has incurred in acquiring them. I do not mind what he does with the houses after we re-house the tenants, but he must leave these good, honest, hard-working people there until the County Council are able, through their housing arrangements, to house them properly.
There are other aspects of this problem. I know there is great sympathy in the Department but, in the nature of things, during the past five years local authorities have been forced, because of the need for homes as a result of the very few dwellings provided during the six years of total war, to concentrate in the main on two specific types of families requiring houses. The first are people in overcrowded dwellings and the second are sub-tenants. The third type of housing need is provided by persons residing in unfit houses. These have had to be left alone in many cases because at least they have had some kind of home, while the sub-tenants were liable in many cases to be thrown out on to the street with their few belongings because of some form of landlordism in the sub-tenancy.
So in many instances, the local authorities being aware of that particular circumstance, have concentrated on the sub-tenants and on the overcrowded families. That has been all very well and I believe it to have been good. But we are now faced with a situation where we have many of these unfit houses, or houses which could be scheduled as unfit, are deteriorating so rapidly that there will be a culmination of deterioration.
What I have described as happening at Dairy in a more acute form, has happened in many more places, and I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland if he would be prepared to consider this particular problem. I know he has to consider it in relation to various other facets of the housing need in Scotland. But I hope he will be prepared to consider it sympathetically in order that some review may be made of the areas which have this heavily weighted problem of unfit houses compared with other areas that have not; so that if possible they get an extra allocation of houses because of their particular need.
I am impressed by the necessity for this because of a recent action taken by the county council of Ayr. I understand that this problem is pressing so heavily


on that county council that, because of the position of many of these unfit properties and of miners rows in particular, in their next allocation of houses they propose to take 100 and set them aside, apart from the special allocation to the whole of the landward areas, and give them to the areas which are suffering especially because of this unfit house problem. I understand that of that 100, possibly 12 may go to the Dalry area. I know of hundreds of unfit houses in that area and the same thing applies to Beith.
I feel that no matter how the county council may draw from their allocation to meet this problem, their action will be ineffectual because the total allocation will be too small for their current needs. The Department ought to consider this problem because we have local authorities in Scotland who are not using their current allocation of houses. We have some local authorities who have not started on their 1950 allocation, far less have they asked for the 1951 allocation. There are many progressive local authorities who are now asking for the 1951 allocation. But if we have laggard local authorities who are not facing up to their responsibilities, or who think that their housing needs are not sufficient for them to take some action, the Secretary of State ought to be prepared to see that their allocation of houses will go to those areas which are so badly in need of a bigger allocation.
The other type of problem, about which we are receiving distressing complaints, is the unfit house of fairly recent age. I am referring to the army-hut type of house which at the most is only seven or eight years old, and which has been occupied by local authority tenants for only five or six years. Many of these dwellings are rapidly deteriorating. I have two fairly large areas in which there are these Army-hut type of houses; one in the Burgh of Stewarton and the other in the Burgh of Irvine. Every week I get letters from families subjected to distressing conditions because of the deterioration of these army huts. While I know, as I have talked with my hon. Friend about this, that there are difficulties—and I do not wish to over stress the position—I feel I would not be doing my duty to my own people and to these two particular areas, as well as to other areas where

there are these Army huts, if I did not ask him to give more consideration to how and when he can ease the problem confronting those local authorities throughout Scotland.
I hope I have not tried to cover too much ground, but I am particularly pleased at having this opportunity to say what I have said; and I hope that what in getting rid of the problem which I I have said will have some urgent effect have tried to illustrate.

8.40 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I enter into this Debate principally because of the final remarks made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) about army huts. I have already approached his right hon. Friend in connection with some of these huts which exist in my own constituency at Patterton Camp. Like the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire I have recently inspected these huts and I was perfectly amazed at the conditions which there exist. What amazed me more than anything was to be told that those who are collecting the rents for these huts were representatives of the Department of Health for Scotland.
I discovered huts which could be made perfectly habitable under the conditions existing today—not at all good conditions—but which could be made very much better than they are. Many have never been divided at all, and those which have are in a most deplorable condition. There is no light in them whatsoever except by paraffin oil. Officially there are 60 families here; unofficially perhaps more. There are four water taps for the people living in this camp, and some have to proceed 60 or 70 yards to some of the taps. That should not exist, particularly if the Department of Health has any responsibility whatsoever. I have taken this up with the Secretary of State, and he has undertaken to have a look at it. Some of these people have been there for five years. After five years we find this camp with 60 families with only four water taps. They have no other conveniences. That is a state of affairs which should not be allowed to exist, and in my opinion, it could quite easily be put right with very small expenditure.
On the other matter of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, he has the sympathy of


the House. He spoke of houses which today are falling into a state of disrepair which should never have been allowed to reach such a state. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some things happening there which it would be very difficult indeed to excuse, but I should have thought that there was a legal remedy available, whereby those tenants could take proceedings against the landlords to see that the houses were watertight. They should never have been allowed to remove all the material which was essential to make them watertight.
The hon. Gentleman has our sympathy in all these things, and the families who are compelled to live in those houses also have our sympathy. I hope this Debate will draw the Government's attention to the fact that we have to build more houses in Scotland, where the need is so much greater than it is in England. I am not going back on the recent debate which we had on housing. A greater effort must be made in Scotland, and I hope the Government will make that effort.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am very interested in what the hon. and gallant Member has said about the general housing situation. The Conservative Party have set themselves a target of 300,000 houses for the whole of the country. Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us how many of these houses are going to be allocated to Scotland?

Commander Galbraith: That is a very pertinent question, and in reply I would say that no decision has yet been arrived at. We appreciate this that in our global figure of 300,000 something more ought to be done for Scotland than has been done in the past in view of the fact that housing conditions in Scotland are very much worse than England. We think that we have a greater claim for houses than in England.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—

Commander Galbraith: No, I cannot give way. I told the hon. Gentleman that I was not going to go over the whole housing debate which we had last month.
There is one other point to which I should like to draw attention. It will interest the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon.

Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Notices are being issued by the County Council of Ayr at the present time—and quite rightly so—to owners of property, asking them to bring their property up to date by installing running water and those other conveniences which are laid down by Act of Parliament. The difficulty that arises is that when these notices are sent out and the landlord is willing to do even more, and submits plans which are approved and applies for licences, the same gentleman who issues the instructions to have this work done says that no licences are available. That surely is a most improper state of affairs.
The second point which arises in this connection, and which is most important and merits consideration, is that in many of these localities there is the labour and materials available to get on with these small jobs. Yet the licences are refused. I hope that the Under-Secretary will look into that matter of instructions being issued seeing that work has to be done, and when the owner expresses his willingness to do it and takes the initial steps, he is told that no more licences are available.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether these licences are for work which comes to more than £100, because according to my knowledge repairs are not being executed though licences are not required for work up to £100?

Commander Galbraith: I am not dealing with repairs, but with improvements. As the hon. Lady knows, a w.c. and a bathroom cannot be added to a house, nor can a kitchenette be provided for the sum of £100. It is a matter of £200 or £300. I hope the Under-Secretary will look into that point. In the matter of repairs, I know perfectly well that one can spend up to £100, and I hope many people are doing it. These are the points to which I want to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary. I hope he will look into them, because the housing conditions in Scotland and a great many of our cities are deplorable.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I would not in any way fall short of the sympathy which the hon. And


gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) expressed for the people who are living in army huts. I think that no hon. Member of the House would disagree with him in saying that they should be maintained by responsible public bodies and Ministries in the best possible state of repair, and that as soon as possible they should be provided with electric light and water supplies.
I confess, however, that I was rather disappointed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in that he did not extend his lecture on these deficiencies to private properties as well as those under Governmental control. I knew that he would say something about licences, but I am thinking of the type of property mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Many of these houses are 100 years old, and were built when there were no licensing restrictions. They were not kept in proper condition, but were allowed to fall into dilapidation and become the slums that we are now being asked to rehabilitate. They had no electricity and no water supply. There was no attempt made to provide these amenities in them, and there were also no licences and no restrictions preventing the landlords from doing it.
The army huts which have been mentioned are only a small part of the total of unfit houses. In my own constituency of the Western Isles, in the Island of Lewis, which has a population of 28,000, the county council has made a survey showing that about 50 per cent. of the houses are unfit for human habitation and should be demolished. Most of them could not in any circumstances economically be put in a condition fit for human habitation. The difficulty was not that the Government—certainly not this Government—would not do it, but that we could not get the private contractor to come in and quote a reasonable price within which these houses could be made fit for occupation. The lowest tender one used to get was round about £2,700 per house, and if that is a reasonable tender, I do not know by what standards the private contractors and their supporters on the Front Bench opposite are judging these things.
This is not an Ardrossan problem, or an Ayrshire problem; it is a country-wide problem, not confined to Scotland, but to

the whole of Britain. The problem which has been left to us is the inheritance of 100 years of neglect and dilapidation, and is by no means confined to the small section covered by those who have spoken about people living in army huts. Some of the army huts are indeed disgraceful places in which to expect people to live, and I should like to see some action taken by the Ministry of Civil Aviation about the numbers of people living in different parts of the country, including my own constituency, on airport sites. A great deal could be done, and a little is being done now, to reduce the exorbitant rents which have been charged up to now—in some cases, the full economic rent—to people who are compelled to live in huts.
There are other points in this problem. I know that, in connection with the long queues of applicants for houses which we saw at the end of the war, we found some people coming out of one type of property and transferring to army huts, against the wishes of the Government and the local authorities, and thus creating an unfair dilemma for the local authorities. In some cases, the living conditions of these people and their families were actually worsened in the hope that they might be given a prior claim to those people who had been longer on the waiting lists than themselves. There has been much jumping of the queue. I am not criticising the appeal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite for doing what we can to bring these amenities of water supply and electric light to these huts. I am objecting to it being narrowed down to army huts.
I know the problem of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in this matter and I can sympathise with him. Is this appeal going to be met out of the total allocation for Scotland? Within the limitations placed upon him and upon us, due to causes beyond our control, is he going to be asked, within that Scottish allocation, to go to the local authorities and say. "Some of these houses are wanted in the Western Isles, in Ardrossan, in Glasgow, the Gorbals and so on," and expect other local authorities on that account to give up their own allocations or part of them?
I know that my hon. Friend for Central Ayrshire has this very much in mind. The obvious answer to that is that we cannot do it by that method alone. We must add to the total if that is practicable, and if it is not practicable—well, it is not


practicable, and that is the only answer that one can get for the moment. I am afraid that we shall have to go further and suggest constructive ways and means by which we can add to the total of houses, because the only effective answer to the housing shortage is to build more houses and not re-allocate a few here and a few there.
This can be a very poignant problem to anyone with a family. I know that the hon. Member would be the first to say that he is not asking that the allocation for Glasgow or Edinburgh or the Islands shall be altered against the wishes and needs of the local people in order to satisfy the needs of Lewis. I know that he does not suggest any such thing. That throws us back again on to the difficulty of expanding our minimum or possibly maximum allocation for this year.
Do not let this discussion be merely an attack on the Under-Secretary or those responsible for the immediate housing conditions. It is much wider than that. This problem goes back not five, but 100 years, and I could wish that those opposite who were responsible for the housing policy had done more to build more houses when there were no licensing restrictions and to improve houses then by providing water supplies and electrification, which is now slowly but surely coming into the remotest homes in Great Britain.

8.57 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: This is a very tragic problem which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). It is a problem indeed that threatens to overwhelm Scotland, where an enormous proportion of houses are daily becoming unfit for use. It is a problem for which private enterprise is not entirely without responsibility because in those happy, halcyon years when there were no Socialist planners in control at Westminster the book-keeping technique of property owning was entirely irresponsible.
I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Commander Galbraith), if I may call him so, who is on the Front Bench opposite. would admit that there has never been in our accountancy a more scrupulous record of amounts set aside for depreciation, so far as property owners are con-

cerned than there has been in business circles, in ship-owning and in the motor car industry, when year by year the balance sheets show a certain amount set aside for depreciation. I know that it is a great temptation for the owner of property just to take all that is left and not to set aside anything for depreciation, but I think it is inexcusable that in the inter-war years, when a previous Government laid down that there should be an increase of 40 per cent. given to property owners, 25 per cent. of which was in respect of increased cost of repairs, those repairs were never carried out.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Lady does realise, does she not, that often the amount left over, to which she was referring, was a minus quantity, and has been for many years?

Mrs. Mann: It is very difficult to say. It really depends upon the age of the property, because the financial returns, as shown in the "Investor's Chronicle" do reveal, and did reveal for quite a number of years in the '30s, that property was giving a 5 per cent. overall recovery. But it can always be argued with quite a lot of truth that a great many property owners are finding they are getting no return at all.
If I have inherited property from my grandmother, doubtless I shall be spending more than I am getting, because of the book-keeping technique or lack of book-keeping technique which failed to point out that property was a diminishing asset, and because of the common acceptance of the practice of looking on property as an ever-continuing investment, which it is not and can never be. The result is that now we have property owners in very real difficulty and yet, at the same time, a great many property owners whose property would have been demolished 20 years ago, if local authorities had been as anxious about housing as they might have been.
We are confronted with a problem which, very soon, will be well-nigh overwhelming to Scotland; and I hope that those in the Scottish Office well know that we in Scotland will not stand for a reduction of the housing output. We will not stand for any diminution of the housing figures, under any circumstances. We shall press for an increase.
With regard to the housing problem raised on this Adjournment Motion, with


specific reference to unfit houses, these houses would have been closed long ago but for the war. They are still open, and I find that local authorities in my own constituency have rehoused people from these unfit dwellings only to find that, because we have not closed the property or demolished the building, others are coming into these vile houses. In my constituency these houses have no flooring, they have no walls, or, at any rate, no plaster on the walls. They have paraffin lamps and no water supply indoors. Water outside in the street serves the whole streetful of houses. My local authority remove the people and then find the houses are rapidly filled up again with other people. Those people come to me and tell me all about the condition of houses from which I have already had the tenants removed two years ago. Now I am asked to remove them again. I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland if he could not try to get the local authorities to close and demolish such houses. They are a disgrace to Scotland. They are a disgrace to civilisation. I would hesitate to bring anyone to look at them. Why should they not be closed up entirely?
It is only recently that the Secretary of State for Scotland has agreed that our local authorities should have an allocation against general needs and that general needs should be interpreted as including slum clearance. The present situation is hardly fair to the local authority which has a very big population in uninhabitable houses, because most local authorities are working on a points system, giving a certain amount of priority for cases of T.B., priority for overcrowding, priority for being homeless or for living with a mother-in-law—which is almost worse than being homeless.
If my local authority decided to close down 50 houses, then all these deserving people with T.B., and similar cases, would be put back on the list, because if they close down houses, they must give priority to the tenants who are being removed. There is this hesitancy on the part of Scottish local authorities to do this bit of cleaning which is so much needed and which would be to advantage later, particularly when we remember that these slums are already serviced for sewers,

streets, roads and so on. Instead of concentrating on that, we are putting our people further out into the suburbs and housing is becoming more costly. My right hon. Friend should encourage local authorities to go in for a little bit—I should like to say a great bit—of slum clearance. At any rate, he should make a start and have these houses demolished.

9.8 p.m.

Sir William Darling: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) represents a very distinguished constituency, one in which Robert Burns lived and in which he wrote "The Cotter's Saturday Night," the poem which was written about humble houses—houses which had not the sanitation and the ideal conditions of which the hon. Member dreams today, although they brought a larger measure of human happiness than has been obtained by the endeavours of the present Government. The Joint Under-Secretary of State must be quite clear, from what has been said by his own supporters, about the deep and profound dissatisfaction of all representatives of Scottish constituencies with the Government's housing policy. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire deplores that lead is being removed from the roofs of houses and that the occupants are finding themselves exposed to the inclemency of the weather.

Mr. Manuel: I hope I was not misunderstood. The hon. Gentleman supports private enterprise completely, and this action of removing the lead from the roofs of these houses was private enterprise at its worst—not concerned about housing but concerned to make some money on the side. I certainly do not want it to be suggested that my speech was blaming the Government for those circumstances.

Sir W. Darling: I well understand that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be placed in the invidious position of not being a supporter of the Government, for his slavish loyalty to the Government is well known in the constituency he represents. In his eyes they can do no wrong. Nevertheless, implicit in his speech was the urgent clamour and knowledge that his constituents are badly housed and have no prospect of being better housed. If that is not an indictment of His Majesty's Government, then I do not


know in what terms to couch one, should I desire to do so.
Sometimes we talk about housing in this House and elsewhere as if the housing of the human race began only in 1945 and that up to that time we wore skins and lived in the woods or under turf roofing. That is the picture which His Majesty's Government and their supporters would like to place before the House and the country. Nothing has been more evil than the ceaseless propaganda of denigration which has come from the Socialist benches about the housing of the people of Scotland. Despite its disadvantages, this great race has housed itself for many centuries and produced men and women who not only made their own country great but who circumscribed the whole of the civilised world. Yet on the lips of Socialist speakers for 25 years we have had nothing but denigration of the housing position of Scotland. How can it be possible that out of such evil so much good can come? The Joint Under-Secretary wants to intervene.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): Does the hon. Gentleman not remember the housing survey of 1935 and what it disclosed? Does he not remember that t disclosed under what dreadful conditions the people of Scotland had to live by comparison with the people of the Southern Kingdom? His party were in power in those days. My party criticised his party for the little they did in those days. His party did not seem to realise that there was a serious shortage of houses in Scotland. It is they who have discovered, since 1945, that there is a housing problem.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is in keeping with his sentiments and his feelings. None the less, I re-assert that the blackening of the Scottish housing position was the prelude to the enjoyment of the power and office which His Majesty's Government now possess.
The houses which, in the opinion of Robert Burns at any rate, were capable of producing happy families, who had a fuller and happier life and as much of the culture of life as we have today, had not water-borne drainage—the new idea of the Socialist legislature. In these days they have that priceless boon, the indoor

closet. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), tells me that society can never be happy if it draws its water from a well. She tells me that these things are essential to good housing. I would point out that a great people was born and grew to its mature stature in conditions of housing which have been denigrated by His Majesty's Government.
No greater evil has been put before the people of Scotland than this pursuit of the unattainable ideal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) said in a remarkable speech, the best has been the enemy of the good. This pursuit of the unattainable by the Government has produced an insufficient number of houses and has increased the discontent of the persons who are inadequately housed and are now denied what they see their fellow citizens enjoying elsewhere. The policy of the Government, by continued criticism of the standards of housing, has created a problem which is now so considerable they cannot hope to solve it.
In every other department of our lives we find a lowering of our standards. Our clothes are not so good as they were. The standard of our food is not so good as it was. The liberties of the subject are less than they were. The whole of life has narrowed and contracted after five or six years of Socialism, but the Government still hold aloft the unattainable ideal of perfection in housing. The Government still believe that they can attain a standard of houses which is beyond their financial resources, beyond the labour resources, beyond the material resources of our country, and they still plead—the plea is on the lips of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie—the case which they themselves know is unattainable. They plead it for party political purposes. This is the dilemma in which they have placed themselves. The setting of a high ideal is a very comforting thing for those who set it, but it is an extremely uncomfortable thing for those who have to listen to it and know it is unattainable.

Mrs. Mann: The hon. Gentleman talks of this as being unattainable. We are talking of a figure of 200,000. The Tories talk about 300,000. If 200,000 is an unattainable number, what


adjective will the hon. Gentleman use to describe the number of 300,000?

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Lady poses me a very simple question. In the sanity and frankness of her mind, and a charming innocence the years are not able to dull in her, and which is still with her, she asks me how it is that I am able to talk with confidence of 300,000 when those, of whom the Joint Under-Secretary of State is the very adequate representative here tonight, whose main object is 200,000 cannot contemplate more than 200,000. She asks me how we dare, we feeble creatures, to talk of 300,000, when they can talk only of 175,000 or 200,000. The reason is exactly what I have endeavoured to state it to be—that one can have 300,000 quite suitable shelters in accordance with our means, and one cannot have 150,000 houses with five or four or three rooms and with two bathrooms and with an indoor and outdoor lavatory. The idealism of the Socialist Party has been their downfall—they lack realism. The eyes of the fool are on the ends of the earth.
Yet they continue dangling—and it is, in my opinion, a cruel thing—they continue dangling in front of the eyes of the homeless the suggestion that people are unhappy because they are living with their mothers-in-law. My mother-in-law for four or five years enjoyed my society and still enjoys it today. It is only Socialists who cannot be sociable. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie and her colleagues have committed themselves to this wicked thing—to dangle in front of the homeless the fact that, as they say, they must live with their mothers-in-law and elsewhere; and they continue to dangle in front of the homeless numerically impossible numbers of houses with five rooms, which they can never have. They ask people to vote for the party opposite in order that they can have such houses. How much more realistic are the Conservative Party in saying: "What we want in this emergency is adequately decent shelter. From shelter we will pass to houses. From the houses we will pass to the mansions of the blest dreamed of by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie and those who share her ideals."

Mr. Manuel: I want the hon. Gentleman to realise that the gravamen of my charge was that in my own constituency—and not for political purposes—lead was being stripped from the roofs of old miners' rows, and flimsy material was being placed there instead. That is something that can be stopped. I do not think you should try to gull the people of Scotland merely to carry on Tory hypocrisy.

Sir W. Darling: The suggestion is made, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are gulling the people of Scotland to carry on Tory hypocrisy. I make no charge of that character against you. You will, however, observe, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman is a little nettled in this matter. The Government and the Minister of Supply have, apparently, been unable to control, the price of lead. They have made lead more valuable than gold, and criminally intended persons apparently, to a limited extent, in the constituency of Central Ayrshire take the lead from roofs in order that they can sell it for undesirable profits.
I would inform you, Sir, and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that this scandal of lead is found not only in Central Ayrshire. Let me take the hon. Gentleman's mind—as he will shortly be taking his person to King's Cross Station—to Bloomsbury which he will traverse on his way to King's Cross. He will find that in Bloomsbury there is an institution which is correctly described, from his Scottish nationalist viewpoint, as the British Museum. Two or three days ago lead was stolen not from miners' rows in Central Ayrshire but from the British Museum, and not from the roof, but from coffins and sarcophagi of ancient Egyptians. So this crime he protests about here, and so annoying to the Joint Under-Secretary of State—a gentle and well-meaning young man—is being committed in Bloomsbury as well as in Central Ayrshire. This stealing of lead, which has now become more valuable than gold, is the direct consequence of the hon. Gentleman's support of the Socialist Party, because they have failed through the Minister of Supply in controlling the price of this commodity, the result of which is that it cannot be procured except by theft. The thing of which he complains is not really a matter about which his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can help him. This stealing of lead Is a widespread


national crime which does not, even in Bloomsbury, respect the coffins of the dead.
If that is all about which he had to complain concerning the housing of his constituents in Central Ayrshire his speech was of little moment, but he knows, and I know, that he has much more serious complaints than the taking away of lead from the roofs of some 30 miners' homes——

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman committed himself to the figure of 30 houses, and, with an eye on his votes at the next General Election, he said that, in spite of the lead being taken away from the roofs, the houses were scrupulously clean—scrupulously clean there are votes there. The complaint is about an unknown, unspecified stealer of lead from roofs who is now apparently operating not only in Bloomsbury but also in Central Ayrshire.
If I had made his speech for the hon. Gentleman—I could have made it much better than he did—I should have complained about more serious things in Central Ayrshire than that. The housing conditions of Central Ayrshire are no different from those in other parts of Scotland, where houses are held up because of lack of materials and lack of capacity to organise labour and by every possible restriction and limitation that human ingenuity can conceive. What the hon. Gentleman said, in effect, was that the housing of Central Ayrshire under the Socialist Government of the last five or six years has been deplorable. Before Socialism came into power people really lived. They had a modicum of happiness. They may have drawn their water from wells in buckets and not had main drainage, but they lived. Looking at hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who come from Scotland, I should say that their parents lived fairly well because they have produced some fine sons and some not unprepossessing daughters.

Mr. Fernyhough: But they still die.

Sir W. Darling: I hope I shall not flatter the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie if I say that she has maintained a certain comeliness even after many years of political activity. She was the product of these conditions.

Mrs. Mann: I must protest. My parents spent a far larger proportion of their income on housing than anyone else with the same income would, and we always lived in a good house.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Lady tells us now that, whatever the housing conditions in Scotland were, there was one good house, the house from which she emerged. Her parents, with greater wisdom than most people, thought that money spent on a good house was worth while. They were right. If many more people in Scotland had given the same attention to the desirability for a good house, the standard of housing would be better in Scotland than it is today.

Mr. Manuel: On 17s. a week?

Sir W. Darling: The English, for whom I have nothing but good to say, recognised many years ago that a quarter of one's income would be well spent on housing and the standard of housing in England is better today because of it.
To return to my central theme, this is a painful experience for the Under-Secretary. It is not new, but it is still painful. He is deeply concerned with housing in Scotland. He has heard again tonight, factually and eloquently put, the views of the constituents of South Ayrshire and Coatbridge and Airdrie. I only hope—it is no more than a hope—that he will do two things. The first is that he will accelerate as far as his Parliamentary capacity enables him to do, the improvement in the maintenance of houses in Scotland and the building of new houses. I admit that in this field he is well intentioned, but he is not likely to be very effective, because houses are not built by Parliamentary Secretaries.
The second thing he can do is to stop his colleagues continually denigrating the houses which we already have. They are not good enough, I know, for angels, but good enough they have been in the past for good men and good women to bring up fine families, and until people can get better houses it is shameful and cruel to pretend that they can shortly be supplied by a piece of political jugglery of which he is the master. That is the mind of the Socialist Party, unable to provide better houses, but still continuing to offer water to men and women who are dying of thirst. They pretend that some inadequacy somewhere, the Korean war


or the recent illness of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—anything, in fact—prevents them from realising these great needs. It is only they who can realise them. Let them trim up their attitude towards public affairs.
It's an ill bird that files its ain nest
Many Parliamentary Secretaries and Secretaries of State for Scotland have "filed their ain nest": and that nest is the noble land of Scotland.

9.26 p.m.

Mrs. Cullen: In past debates it might have been difficult to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), but I do not find it so difficult tonight. When there is a housing debate in the House, I do not know how there comes to be so much hilarity on the benches opposite, for it is a terrible tragedy to see people living in the misery they are suffering today. I have listened to hon. Members speaking tonight particularly of their own constituencies, but there is no constituency in the whole of Scotland with conditions worse than the Gorbals. When I go to the Glasgow Corporation and plead with the convenor of housing to do something about the clearing of slums, I am told that St. Andrew's House is responsible, yet when I go there to the Secretary of State at St. Andrew's House, I am told that the local authority have full powers.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, talks of the houses in the old days. Does he mean to say that an ideal home was one which had no sanitation, no bathrooms, and no convenience of any kind? Is he prepared to say that a home of that kind was a decent home for any working person in which to live? My grandfather had six sons, who were all miners in the pits. They had a "but and ben." Those six men had to have water every night with which to wash. They had no gas stove, and no cooking facilities to provide decent meals, no conveniences of any kind, and they never saw daylight except for a few hours in the week. Were those conditions ideal for miners?

Sir W. Darling: Is the hon. Lady talking about the beginning of the 19th century, or of 1850?

Mrs. Cullen: I am not drawing my old age pension yet.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Lady was saying that I believed the conditions under which six persons lived in two rooms and without sanitary conditions as we know them today, were desirable. I was not saying so. What I said was that it was wrong and cruel to pretend that one can supply ideal conditions to everyone at once. That is what the Socialist Government have been doing, and that is the root cause of the dissatisfaction in housing today.

Mrs. Cullen: The hon. Member was saying, however, that people who lived under those conditions were very happy. Since 1945 the Socialist Government have done everything in their power to house the working people at rents which they could afford.
My complaint is that in the Gorbals constituency, the most congested there is, where seven and even eight families—as many as 78 people—use the same lavatory, nothing has been done. When my constituents read the Press in the morning they will say, "Another debate on housing in the Gorbals, but nothing is being done." I have not often risen to speak in this House, but whenever I have, I have always tried to plead for something to be done for the constituents I represent in the Gorbals.
I have listened to hon. Members talking about the prevention of tuberculosis. I could give an instance of a man in his thirties who died not long ago in a single apartment house where he had lived with his wife and four young children. When his family were X-rayed, they were all found to be suffering from infection, yet he had been unable to get either a home or a bed in a hospital. I ask the Secretary of State to make a special effort, to appeal to the housing committee and to the convenor in Glasgow, to do something for the people in the Gorbals.
I hold a "surgery" every Friday night which is attended by 60 or 70 people, the majority of whom have complaints about housing. A woman who came to see me recently brought with her a child aged eight who had nine rat bites over her body. Those are the conditions in which people are living. We do not blame the Labour Government, for they have done everything in their power for housing. The property owners are responsible for the slums, for the simple reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-


bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) pointed out, that when there were plentiful supplies of material and labour nothing was done. In consequence, buildings have deteriorated, and to such an extent that people will not go to the expense of the major repairs which are now necessary. There are dwellings which are not even windproof or waterproof, and the tragedy is that their occupants must continue to pay the rent.

Sir W. Darling: How long have we had a Socialist Town Council in Glasgow?

Mrs. Cullen: We had a Socialist council in Glasgow since 1933, but we have had the legislation of a Socialist Government since only 1945. The hon. Member must admit that the folks on the other side of the House are responsible for the deplorable conditions in Glasgow and, I suppose, in Edinburgh. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do as I have asked so that tomorrow people will not say, "Another debate on the Gorbals. They will be sitting on it for another three years." We must clear the sites and clear away the slums and the rats. There is only one way of clearing the rats and that is by demolishing the buildings, but that cannot be done until we find somewhere to house the people. They do not want to be moved miles away and have to pay big fares to get to work. We must build the houses where there are the services already, in the Gorbals.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: It is admitted in all parts of the House that housing in Scotland is deplorable and that something must be done but I cannot understand why hon. Members want to go back 100, 50, or 20 years ago. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) was convenor for housing in Glasgow Corporation and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen)——

Mrs. Mann: Mrs. Mann rose——

Mr. Bennett: I will give way in a minute. The hon. Lady was a member of the Glasgow Corporation for many years and, from 1933 to 1949, there was a Socialist council in Glasgow which had all the authority and all the power to build all the houses they could with unlimited materials. I wish to ask one

question and I will allow the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie to answer. How many houses have they built in the Gorbals?

Mrs. Cullen: None.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Lady has answered, none.

Mrs. Cullen: Although no houses have been built in the Gorbals the hon. Member must admit that 1,200 families have been re-housed from the Gorbals. But that is not solving the problem.

Mr. Bennett: That is what I am coming to; we are not solving the problem and we have not even told the Scottish Office what they ought to do. We heard from the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) about conditions 100 years ago. I wonder if he really knows the history of Scotland. One hundred years ago in his part of the country they built their own houses——

Mr. M. MacMillan: They still do—

Mr. Bennett: They still do—

Mr. MacMillan: State assisted.

Mr. Bennett: When a man was getting married he told his friends and they all came round and helped him and he did the same for others. It is true to say that private enterprise created those conditions, a very fine type of private enterprise and they were satisfied with the conditions——

Mr. MacMillan: There are excellent books and reports on the subject, but I made it clear that when the county council were responsible for houses and asked for tenders they could not get anything at a reasonable rate. The sum of £2,700 was the only tender they could get and no help came until the State came in with Swedish houses—prefabricated houses from Sweden.

Mr. Bennett: There must be a tremendous amount of enterprise among hon. Members opposite, but none of them seem to have the ability to get into the house building industry. We have heard from the Minister of Health that anyone can enter that industry and that all the incompetents are there. I wonder that some of the competents on the other side of the House do not enter it and see what can be done.
We heard this afternoon that the responsibility was entirely that of the local


authority. But what is the case in Glasgow? Glasgow has now completed the 1951 programme. They are ahead of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and it is no good asking Glasgow to provide houses for Central Ayrshire. They have actually borrowed on next year's quota. I agree that they have been diligent and successful enough to have been promised part of the 1952 quota when they get started. The hon. Member for Western Isles is complaining that they did not have electricity there 100 years ago——

Mr. M. MacMillan: Nor five years ago.

Mr. Bennett: The crux of the question is that we in Glasgow—and I will stick to something I know something about—get 5,000 houses per annum. That is, roughly, five out of 200,000, which is a fortieth of the population, but with conditions in Glasgow we ought to have one out of every 10 which are built. I consider it the duty of the Scottish office, knowing the conditions which prevail in Scotland today, to provide one in 10 at least and not to be satisfied with one in 40. If they did that——

Mr. T. Fraser: For what class of needy person in Glasgow would the hon. Member make the houses available?

Mr. Bennett: The class I represent, the class the hon. Member represents, the renting class. If the Government build houses for the letting class, and face up to their responsibilities, we shall get somewhere.
We are far too prone here to go back into the past and talk about our grandfathers. Go round Holyrood Palace. There was no bath there in the time of Queen Mary. There was no wash-hand basin there then. If hon. Members go to Westminster Hall they will find one or two things there from the time of Queen Mary. Do not let us go back to the time of our great grandfathers. Philosophy may triumph over past and future misfortune, but present misfortune triumphs over philosopy. Hon. Members opposite are suffering from a Fabian philosophy and, if they would forget it for a moment, they would get somewhere.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: To some extent I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Bennett) that we can go too far back into the past and that it is our duty to look towards the future.
I would like to try to find an answer to the question I put to the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith): exactly what is the programme of the Tory Party in Scotland? Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) can answer that question, which his hon. and gallant Friend failed to do. We all know what has taken place in England. At Blackpool, the Conservative Party had a great conference. The rank and file said, "We are not getting a lead from the platform. We want another 100,000 houses." There was no revolt in the Scottish Tory Party Conference and we still want to know what target our Conservative friends envisage for Scotland.

Sir W. Darling: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate so early a return of the Conservative Party to power that he is so anxious to know their programme for housing?

Mr. Hughes: That is irrelevant to the debate. Certainly, if the ideas of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) were to be taken seriously by his own Front Bench Members the return of the Conservative Party to power would not be very swift. When the hon. Member spoke recently in the debate on the Gracious Speech, he urged us to do away with all subsidies, including the housing subsidy.

Sir W. Darling: Sir W. Darling indicated assent

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman nods, so we can say that here is a leading member of the Conservative Party in Scotland who is anxious to remove the housing subsidy. But if we remove that subsidy, what incentive is that to the local authorities? I am glad to have it indicated authoritatively in this House that the Tory Party stands for abolishing the housing subsidy.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Bennett indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: No? So there is a split within the Tory Party already. The Tory Party does not know where it stands on


the housing policy. In passing, let me suggest to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, that if he were elevated to the position of Secretary of State for Scotland and proceeded to abolish the housing subsidy, his would be a short life and a gay one——

Sir W. Darling: Nasty, brutish and short.

Mr. Hughes: —because the abolition of the housing subsidy in Scotland would immediately send up rents by £20, £30, £50 a year and the immediate result would be that every local authority in Scotland would say, as it did in the years when I was a member of a town council, that the people simply could not afford to pay the rents. The only suggestion I have ever heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, make is to abolish housing subsidies, which would undoubtedly stop housing altogether.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has twice said that. I am opposed to subsidies. If he would do me the honour of reading my speech he would find that what I said, speaking for myself, was that I believe that he who is helped is hindered. Subsidy may not be a sovereign remedy. The American Loan is a subsidy. Housing is subsidised. It would be better for brave men to stand up to trouble without being propped up with housing, or any other subsidies. Subsidies are a complete anathema to me, but I can understand the hon. Gentleman, who has been propped up all his life, being unsympathetic to me, who does not desire propping up.

Mr. Hughes: I would not like to try to explain that intervention except to say that the hon. Member has produced a remedy for the housing situation which none of his colleagues will accept for one moment. But perhaps the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove will do something to elucidate this problem. because he was very eloquent earlier in the evening on the housing grievances in the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Miss HornsbySmith). The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove is entitled to enlighten us as to whether the Scottish Tories are going to increase the target by 33⅓ per cent.——

Sir W. Darling: Wait for the conference.

Mr. Hughes: —because that was the attitude of the Conservative Party at Blackpool. They said, "We will increase the housing target by 33⅓ per cent."

Hon. Members: Fifty per cent.

Sir W. Darling: From 200 to 300 is 50 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: Well, by a considerable percentage. Now we would like to know how this is to affect Scotland. When I put that question to the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok a few minutes ago he said, "We have not decided upon it yet."

Sir W. Darling: Not at the conference.

Mr. Hughes: So here we have a member of a party who is so keen about the housing problem in Scotland that he has not an idea of its target. I suggest that when this party tell us that we have not devoted sufficient attention to the housing problem, they are doing what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, said, and exploiting this situation before us. I suggest we should get from some Conservative Member the answer to the question: How will they increase the output of houses in Scotland? Would they increase the labour force? If so, how? Would they increase the supply of building materials? If so, how? What exactly is their attitude towards houses for let? Are they proposing to allow the building trades to become free? Are they proposing to remove controls? Are they going to give the speculative builder the right to take on whatever building jobs he likes? What positive contribution have they to make to the housing problem?
I know exactly the contribution made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He reduced the housing subsidy. In the present financial state of the country if the Tories were returned to power, they would, to meet the great financial problems before them, once again resort to what they did before—those of us who were members of town councils remember it so well—and reduce the housing subsidy. I submit that we ought to have from any other Conservative Members who speak in this debate, a clear, positive, constructive proposal as to how to increase the building army. Exactly how many more houses are they going to build over and above those


planned for by the Government? What exactly is the Scottish attitude to the Blackpool housing crusade?
I want to say one or two constructive words—

Sir W. Darling: Before the hon. Member reaches his constructive words will he answer this? How many of his constituents in Scotland—if he knows—are anxious to build houses for themselves without a subsidy? Can he give anything like the figure? I have been told there are tens of thousands of persons who, if they were permitted to do so by the Government, would like to build houses for themselves without subsidy. Is not that an important element from the non-subsidy point of view?

Mr. Hughes: It is not an important element at all in the constituency I represent. The position in Ayrshire is that there is a great demand for municipal houses; and I do not see that even if we said to everybody who needs a house. "You can build a house if you wish," any practical solution of the great housing problem would be likely to be achieved on those lines.
I am very anxious to know what is likely to be the effect of the rearmament programme upon housing in Scotland. I do not see how we can proceed with a rearmament programme, which will, presumably, take away workers from the building industry, and yet have more houses at the same time. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who are pressing on the Government a rearmament programme are pressing on the Government a policy which is likely to mean the withdrawal of further building workers from the building labour force. I am very anxious to get assistance from hon. Members opposite——

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman needs it.

Mr. Hughes: —for the proposal that I have made that we should give priority to the building industry and exempt from military service people who are needed for work on housing schemes. Conscription has been increased from 18 months to two years, which means that for a further six months the young plasterers, carpenters and bricklayers are left in the Army, which results in a withdrawal of a certain percentage of the building force

from the industry which is engaged in providing houses for the people. I managed to convert one Tory Member to that idea, but he happened to be an English Member. I have not yet made any impression on the hard core of the Scottish Conservatives.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman can always be hopeful.

Mr. Hughes: I am hopeful. I am supremely optimistic that one day I will convert the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South, to my view.
What is likely to be the effect on the building industry of the air raid shelter scheme announced last Thursday? How is it possible to catch up with the housing needs, which are everywhere apparent—from Central Ayrshire to Coatbridge, from Edinburgh to Glasgow and in all the other Scottish constituencies—if workers are to be taken from housing schemes and put on air raid shelters?
I submit that we must look upon the housing programme in its relation to the capital investment programme. All Members who are interested in housing in Scotland should support me in the campaign which I have been conducting for some years in this House to ensure that there are made available a greater number of workers in the industry as well as a greater supply of building materials. In the crisis which will come during the next few years, when there is a pull by the people who want more money spent on armaments and more workers turned into that industry and those who want more workers in the housing industry, I hope that the majority will be in favour of Scotland's housing needs.
Unless the Conservatives are prepared to support me in that campaign, and unless the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, is prepared to come along with me in his political dotage, I do not think that the Conservative Party will be able to put forward any constructive proposal to this problem. I join with other Members in agreeing that the Government have done a great job, since the war, in Ayrshire.

Mr. McKie: We do not say so on this side of the House.

Mr. Hughes: In Ayrshire we see all around us housing schemes being pushed forward at a very gratifying rate. We have seen a lot of miners old houses dis-


appear and new housing schemes undertaken. The hon. Member for Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith), who lives in my constituency, knows of the progress that is being made. In Ayrshire generally great drives have been undertaken to produce houses. Hon. Members opposite should not regard this matter just as something in which they can outbid the Labour Party and exploit the difficulties of the people. They should come forward with constructive proposals, show where the Government have failed, and help forward a great social scheme. When such hon. Members as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, come forward with constructive proposals, I will say that they have been born again.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I am particularly glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), since he happens to represent me, if not my ideas, in this House. It seems to me that of late what he has been saying has moved a long way from the problem which was raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). We should be grateful to the hon. Member for giving us the opportunity of discussing the housing problem in Scotland, because it is very much more serious there than it is in England.
Hon. Members on the other side of the House do not do a great deal of good by harping on the past. The trouble with people who criticise the past, is that they look at those things from the standard and the standpoint of the present and that is a great mistake. When one criticises something built in the past, one wants to criticise it by the standard existing at the time it was built and not the standard of today.
One of the reasons why the situation in Scotland is not as good as it might have been was the existence in the past of our present rating system. That must be faced, and hon. Members opposite should realise the difficulty in which the Conservative Government of those days was placed, in suggesting any alteration in that system. Such a step would immediately have raised an outcry from Members of the Labour Party to the effect that additional burdens were being placed upon the tenants.

Mr. T. Fraser: Could the hon. Gentleman say which Conservative Government proposed to deal with the rating system and what Labour Members of this House objected?

Mr. Galbraith: I was not in the House at that time.

Mr. Fraser: Nor was anybody else.

Mr. Galbraith: But I have heard it said, and I think that anyone viewing the problem honestly would realise it, that had the Conservative Party, which is wrongly regarded as the party representing the landlords, introduced a measure of reform like that at that time, it would have been an extremely difficult political manœuvre to carry it out, faced with the natural opposition which would arise from the Labour Party.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

Mr. Galbraith: I think the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) was a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). We were not laughing at the housing conditions in Scotland when we were following his speech, but at the very astute criticism which he made of the hon. Lady's own party, and I would remind the hon. Lady that, in our housing debates, when the Minister of Health is opening or replying for the Government, most of his remarks are entirely irrelevant to anything to do with housing.
The problem that was actually raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was, in the main, the problem of the deterioration of building in Scotland. It seems to me that three things can be done about that. First of all, we can try to repair existing buildings as they are, which means that more money must be spent upon them. I say that it is for the Government to discover how that money is to be procured. There are various ways by which it can be procured. It is not for me to suggest them, but for the Government to discover them and then take the steps to see that the money so secured is spent upon the repairing of these houses which are worthy of repair.
Secondly, and I think the hon. Member for Gorbals would agree with me,


areas in the centre of towns should be cleared. Houses should not be allowed to fall into disrepair and new houses built in their places to create a tremendous transport problem in large towns. I am thinking particularly of the city of Glasgow, one of the constituencies in which I have the honour to represent, and which is in a position of extreme difficulty because of the transport problem in a city which is divided by a large river with too few bridges across it.
The third point, and the one to which I really want to address myself, concerns not the repairing of houses in their existing form, but altering them while retaining the existing structure. As an illustration, where there are two houses, one on each side of a staircase, the two should be knocked into one. I believe that a great advance could be made in this way in Glasgow, where there is an appreciable number of houses which, structurally, are perfectly adequate but which have too many people living in them.
Now I want to make my constructive suggestion. It is that a number of the new houses built in each area should be set aside to house people from good but overcrowded houses, so that these good but overcrowded houses may be restored and repaired, and, perhaps, after repairs, they could be used to house only half the number of people living in them previously. I believe that to be very much better than allowing them to remain as they are and ultimately to be wasted.
Finally, I would refer to one very interesting remark of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, who said that many people wanted to live in municipal houses. I think the reason for that must be perfectly obvious. It is that those houses are subsidised, and, of course, they are the only houses. Here there is a tremendous difference between hon. Members opposite and myself. I am not satisfied that it is a good thing to encourage all people to live in municipal houses, or, indeed, to live in privately-owned houses. I myself believe that renting a house, instead of owning a house, is a bad thing.
We want to do the very opposite to what the Government are doing. The Government are making it absolutely impossible for people to own their own houses unless they happen to be extremely rich. I believe that this is a wrong ten-

dency, and that what we ought to be trying to do is to encourage and make it easier for people to own their own houses. I believe that it is only when people own something themselves, and thus have a personal interest in it, that they really look after it.

Mrs. Mann: It was never easier. Every newspaper carries large pages of advertising offering houses at extortionate prices, and it is not the Government but the greed and rapacity of private enterprise which has prevented people from owning these houses.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Lady is really too simple. Of course, there are these houses, and, of course, the price is exorbitant, for the very good reason that the supply is limited. That is another thing which I can never understand about hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. They say that houses should only be for people who are in need; yet one has only to look at the newspapers or the magazines to see the vast number of houses which are for sale today, and which can be bought by people if they have the means. I believe that is wrong. I believe that it should be open to everyone to have an opportunity of acquiring a house of their own.
I would end on this note. However much sympathy we have for people who are in need—and I have the very greatest sympathy for people who are in need—I do not believe that need should be the only criterion in getting a house. There ought to be some scope, so that people who have the merit and the energy to save should be able to build houses for themselves.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise, as a mere Englishman, for intervening very briefly in a Scottish Debate, but I do so in order to take up and to emphasise a point made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and, by implication, by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen), namely, that by delaying the commencement of slum clearance we are building up a whole mass of new houses on the peripheries of our cities.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith) drew attention to the present consequences of that with regard to transport. I want to draw atten-


tion to the consequences for the future; a problem which we are laying in store for ourselves which falls both on English cities and Scottish cities. It is this: When we eventually do come to slum clearance, we shall find that our cities have a dead heart and are surrounded by a ring of new houses, and the entire centre of the city or town is dead. When that has happened we shall not merely have exported the people from the hearts of our towns but we shall have lost something which we cannot ever re-create; we shall have lost the texture of the community which these towns once had.
There are people in my own town who have gone out to housing estates on the periphery whose second generation come back to be married and have their children baptised in the parish church of the slum area from which they came. That texture does still exist, but if we go on much longer exporting the population without rebuilding in the centres of our towns, we shall have destroyed it for ever. Lord Simon of Wythenshawe in his book of 1944 on reconstruction criticises the pre-war administration for having started on slum clearance too early and for having destroyed accommodation units while there was an absolute shortage in existence. Mathematically that may be correct, but socially and psychologically I am certain that it is wrong.
For other reasons which have been given in the Debate and also having regard to the town planning consideration to which I have ventured to draw attention, I urge the Government to take their courage in both hands and to allot a much larger number of houses per year—whether out of 200,000 or 300,000 does not matter—to the replacement of slum housing in situ by properly constructed and properly planned accommodation.

10.10 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I do not know whether we have been quite fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) tonight. It is usual, on these Adjournments, for a private Member to seek to raise with the Minister a matter of particular interest to himself and his constituents, though it may be a matter of wide public and national importance.

Mr. Manuel: And it has not left the Minister much time to reply.

Mr. T. Fraser: My hon. Friend, spoke to me only a very short time before he was able to address the House and said that he would like very much to discuss with me on this Motion the problem of unfit houses and ex-Service camps in his constituency. Since then, this Debate broadened out into a debate on housing in Scotland at first and then—and I do not complain about this—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) discussed the question of town planning generally. The hon. Member for Hillhead (Mr. T. D. G. Galbraith) said we had got a little away from the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire. But I do not think he got anywhere nearer to it when he went on to discuss the rating system.
May I invite the hon. Member for Hillhead to do a little research in the next day or two? I should be very interested if he came to me to tell me that, in consequence of his research, he had been able to discover the occasion on which the Conservative Party, when in power, wanted to deal with the rating system problem and the Scottish Socialists would not permit them to do so. I believe the rating system in Scotland is faulty and, for that reason, I have made pretty full inquiries into it. I have taken the trouble to read all the reports we have had for the last 50 years on the rating system in Scotland. Of course, we have never had any alternative from any representative body that has made any inquiry into it.
Let me say a word about unfit houses and the ex-Service camps. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire asked that, where there was a high proportion of unfit houses, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should consider the allocation of houses preferentially to that area to enable the local authority to begin to pull down unfit houses and to begin to deal with what he regarded as the second phase of the housing problem in Scotland. We do consider it, and we do have this matter in mind when we allocate houses from year to year.
He will know that there are unfit houses throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. Each year, when we allocate to the local authorities of Scotland houses for the ensuing housing year, we have in mind the needs of each area.


They disclose themselves by reference to the number of families on the waiting list, the number of families living in overcrowded conditions, and the number of families living in unfit houses, and so on. But we also have to have in mind the ability of the local authority concerned to build houses.
It is no good having in mind merely the need for houses in a particular area, if experience shows that the local authority in that area is unable to build the houses.

Sir W. Darling: The chosen instrument.

Mr. Fraser: If the local authority, the chosen instrument in the area represented by the hon. Gentleman, as an example, are unable to build the houses allocated by the Secretary of State, it is no good making representations and saying "Please give us more." If, after saying that, we discover that they do not build the number we have already given; if the chosen instrument in those circumstances is unable or unwilling—and I rather suspect unwilling—to build the houses for the people in that area, it seems to me and to the Government that it is not a bad thing for the Government to allocate to another authority some of the houses which would, in other circumstances, go to the first authority, so that the resources may be employed in order to build houses for the people who most need them.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman referred to the "chosen instrument." If the chosen instrument has broken down, as in the City of Edinburgh, can he blame the City of Edinburgh for not finding the chosen instrument quite so useful as he finds it?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman knows better than I do the reasons for the chosen instrument having broken down in Edinburgh. As far as I know, we have no unemployed building trade workers in Edinburgh. Presumably the hon. Gentleman has in mind that if another instrument were found in Edinburgh for the provision of houses, they would be able to recruit building labour in order to build houses, and I think he is probably right.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: He is the chosen instrument.

Mr. Fraser: But the instrument he would choose would take the building labour——

Sir W. Darling: And build houses.

Mr. Fraser: It would take the building labour from the Government's chosen instrument, the local authority, and from the contractors who are building houses for the local authority, and would use it to build houses for people who could afford to buy them. Those houses would not be of the one or two apartment kind, with no water and no bathroom. They would be houses of five or six or seven apartments, with two bathrooms, or with one bathroom and two w.cs., as one hon. Member mentioned in his speech. The hon. Member imagined local authorities building houses with five or six apartments, with two bathrooms and a w.c. outside. That does not happen. But the people the hon. Gentleman wants to obtain houses, are people who want houses with two bathrooms.
I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong. His hon. Friend the Member for Woodside (Mr. Bennett) said he wanted to see four times as many houses being built in Glasgow as are being built, and he wanted to see houses being built for letting. I am sure the hon. Member for Woodside believes that sincerely. It is a great pity that he is so much out of accord with the thoughts of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South.

Sir W. Darling: Oh, no.

Mr. Fraser: It is such a great pity that he cannot get any leadership from the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) in his campaign. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) who spoke a little earlier in our discussions, seems to agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, because he wanted to have houses built by any agency which could be found, if the newspapers reported correctly the speech he made at Blackpool. He said that he would strive towards 300,000 houses by a several-point programme, and the first point was that he would abolish all licensing controls. After the bracing air of Blackpool the Conservative Party came back to the House of Commons and we had a debate on housing during the debate on the Address. They did not then say they would abolish licence controls.


They intended to have more of them. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was going to give local authority housing the same priority as that which it has at present—or so he said. We are not at all sure. We still do not know.
In any case, when we were discussing housing last week we had the impression—those of us who sat throughout the debate—that the feeling in the House generally, and certainly the feeling on the opposite side of the House, was in favour of taking the building labour force of this country and our building resources generally away from other activities and turning a larger part of them to the building of houses. That was the whole tenor of the debate.
Tonight, however, our attention has several times been called to the deterioration of existing houses and the need to repair them. It is right, of course, that we should have in mind the need for repairs, because it would be the height of folly to take building trade workers away from essential repair and maintenance of existing properties in order to turn them to the building of new houses. That would be false economy in the use of labour. At the same time, it would be the sort of economy which was being pressed upon us last week from hon. Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) talked about the need to clear the areas in the centre of a city and to build houses there. I entirely agree, but the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, will agree that the appeal should be made more to the local planning authority than to His Majesty's Government. I agree that we ought to plan and to execute the clearing of areas within the centre of many of our cities and to use the existing services so as to build houses and blocks of flats, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that we cannot hope to house adequately within the boundaries of the existing cities all the people who live there at the present time. That is certainly the case in Glasgow and I strongly suspect it is the case in Wolverhampton, too.

Mr. Powell: Is not the consent of the Minister of Health or the Secretary of

State for Scotland required before a house can be demolished by a local authority?

Mr. Fraser: That is not so. It certainly is not so in Scotland. I cannot speak for the Ministry of Health. Indeed. before I came across to the House—and I did not know we were going to have this discussion at all—I was discussing with advisers of ours at the Department of Health for Scotland the problem in Glasgow, and I asked only this evening that one of my principal advisers should go to Glasgow to consider with the officials of the Corporation whether they could not proceed with the demolition of some properties in the centre of Glasgow and proceed with the building of some modern flats within that city.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman asked how he was going to induce the local authorities. Am I not right in saying that before the war there was an inducement through a subsidy for slum clearance, but no subsidy for other building? Would not some additional subsidy—a differential subsidy—be the answer?

Mr. Fraser: We should, of course, require legislation for that, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has a passing acquaintance with the Labour Government's Act of 1930, which his right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove knows something about, too, because he did a little bit of whittling during his term of office at the Scottish Office.
I do very much regret the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). He asked us to lower our sights. We were aiming far too high. We ought not to think of houses with three or four or five rooms. We must not fool the working people of Scotland into believing that one day they could occupy two-bedroomed houses. We must be realists. They could not have two-bedroomed houses, these working people of Scotland.

Sir W. Darling: Not all at once.

Mr. Fraser: Of course, not all at once; but the hon. Gentleman said that we ought not even to hold out the hope that they would ever get them.

Sir W. Darling: No.

Mr. Fraser: He said that in Burns's time Scotsmen—good, healthy, vigorous,


enterprising Scotsmen—were born and brought up six or eight in a single room. He did not say that what was good enough for them was good enough for us, but that was the only inference to be drawn from his speech. But it is not good enough for this day and generation at all. We are delighted to think that not many, if any, hon. Members on his side of the House agree with him in what he said in that regard.

Sir W. Darling: Is it the hon. Gentleman's point that it is right that we should have first-class housing for a minority and leave the majority unhoused? Is it not better to give a lesser standard of housing for all, until we can have better for all?

Mr. Fraser: That is exactly what the Labour Government have done. They have insisted that houses with 10 and 12 and 14 rooms should not be built, and that only houses of reasonable dimensions should be built, and that they should be built for those who most need them. The Opposition have constantly been asking us to get rid of licences and controls, and to allow those who employ the building resources to build houses of any size they like, and with any frills they care to spend the money on.

Sir W. Darling: Nonsense.

Mr. Fraser: One word about ex-Service camps. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire made a plea about ex-Service camps which he had in mind, saying they should be treated as unfit houses. What I said about unfit houses applies to Service camps. We do have in mind the needs of local authorities, including the need that may have been made manifest by their having a great number of families living in ex-Service camps. What we have to be a little careful about is that we do not—the local authorities are very conscious of this—make new houses available to persons just because they happen to have occupied an ex-Service camp without the permission of anybody at all. They must not be allowed to lump the queue. That is what the local authorities themselves say, and I think the Government must support the local authorities in that. However, that does not absolve the local authorities or the

Central Department from the necessity to have in mind the needs of those people, and from striving to see that those people are better housed than they are at the present time.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie talked about the need to maintain our output of houses. I would just say that we do not contemplate that there will be any diminution in the number of houses built in Scotland. Indeed, we very much hope that the number of houses in Scotland will steadily increase. Opposition Members say, "Please do not look to the past," although they have been doing a bit of that themselves tonight. Before the war we in Scotland had very bad housing conditions, as everyone will admit. Before the war we were building one house in Scotland for every 13 houses built in England and Wales. Today we are building twice as many houses, relatively speaking, as before the war—one house to every six and a half built in England and Wales; and the same number as in the best years of the Conservative Party before the war—about 10,000 more than the average they were building before the war.
What we want is more output from the existing labour force. We must have incentive schemes. I am sure we must have them. The local authorities tell me they want them; the master builders tell me they want them. Somehow, however, we do not get them on any scale. I would appeal to all those concerned—the local authorities and the masters and men in the building industry—to give us incentive schemes, to give the workers incentives to remain in house building and not to go away to less necessary work. In that way I think we can increase very considerably the number of houses to be built in Scotland. If we do that, we shall all of us better serve the interests of the people of Scotland.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.